Tardif
T.C.J.:
This
case
concerns
appeals
in
respect
of
the
1990
and
1991
taxation
years.
The
appellant
was
represented
at
the
hearing
by
her
son
Claude
Nadeau.
He
testified
and
was
much
better
informed
than
the
appellant
herself
about
all
the
facts
relating
to
the
assessments
at
issue
in
the
instant
appeals.
At
the
start
of
the
hearing
the
appellant
admitted
all
the
facts
assumed
by
the
respondent
to
justify
the
assessments,
except
for
the
following
allegations:
[TRANSLATION]
(r)
as
a
consequence
of
the
aforementioned
series
of
transactions
a
tax
benefit
was
conferred
on
the
appellant
and
the
Minister
considered
that
the
increase
in
the
paid-up
capital
of
the
class
C
shares
from
$1.00
to
$76.40
a
share
was
an
abuse;
(t)
the
reassessments
made
by
the
Minister
on
June
9,
1994
for
the
1990
and
1991
taxation
years
do
not
violate
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
The
appellant’s
agent
admitted
all
the
other
facts
assumed
in
support
of
the
reassessments
at
issue
in
the
instant
appeal.
The
facts
on
which
the
reassessments
were
based
are
not
at
issue,
since
the
appellant
has
admitted
and
recognized
that
they
are
accurate,
so
it
is
appropriate
to
set
them
out
below:
[TRANSLATION]
4(a)
on
July
13,
1982
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
Nadeau
incorporated
the
holding
company
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
(“the
company”)
under
Part
IA
of
the
Quebec
Companies
Act;
(b)
the
company
has
only
one
investment,
namely
the
shares
in
its
wholly
owned
subsidiary,
Maurice
Delgrave
Inc.
(“the
subsidiary”);
(c)
the
subsidiary
has
operated
a
furniture
retail
business
for
a
number
of
years;
(d)
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
respectively
hold
51%
and
49%
of
the
outstanding
common
shares
in
the
company;
(e)
in
April
1990
the
market
value
and
tax
consequences
of
the
company’s
shares
were
the
following;
|
|
|
No.
of
|
|
Paid-up
|
|
shares
|
FMV
|
ACB
|
capital
|
Appellant
|
61
|
$467,687
|
$
6,100
|
$
6,100
|
Claude
Nadeau
|
59
|
$452,353
|
$
5,900
|
$
5,900
|
|
120
|
$920,040
|
$12,000
|
$12,000
|
PER
SHARE
|
|
$
7,667
|
$
100
|
$
100
|
(f)
in
early
1990
the
appellant
decided
that
it
was
a
good
time
for
her
to
withdraw
from
the
furniture
retail
business:
(g)
on
June
8,
1990
numbered
company
2757-6958
was
incorporated
under
the
Quebec
Companies
Act
with
the
appellant’s
son
Claude
Nadeau
as
its
sole
proprietor;
(h)
on
July
20,
1990
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
transferred
their
Class
A
shares
to
the
company
in
consideration
of
new
Class
A
shares
of
the
company
with
the
following
values:
|
No.
of
|
|
|
shares
|
FMV
|
ACB
|
Legal
paid-
|
|
up
capital
|
Appellant
|
61
A
|
$467,687
|
$467,687
|
$
6,100
|
Claude
Nadeau
|
59
A
|
$452,353
|
$400,000
|
$
5,900
|
|
120
A
|
$920,040
|
$867,687
|
$12,000
|
PER
SHARE
|
|
$
7,667
|
$
7,667
|
$
100
|
(i)
on
July
20,
1990
the
appellant’s
son
Claude
Nadeau
subscribed
and
paid
$100
for
100
Class
B
shares;
0)
on
July
24,
1990
the
company
altered
its
articles
as
follows:
i.
all
the
authorized
shares
that
had
not
been
issued
were
cancelled:
(11.)
an
unlimited
number
of
no
par
value
Class
A,
B,
C
and
D
shares
were
created;
iii.
the
120
shares
described
in
paragraph
4(e)
were
converted
to
120
Class
A
shares
as
described
in
paragraph
4(h);
iV.
each
of
these
new
shares
had
rights
of
participation
and
voting
rights
attached
to
it
and
was
convertible
into
a
Class
C
or
D
share
at
the
option
of
the
holder
and
the
company;
V.
each
issued
and
outstanding
Class
A
share
was
split
into
100
shares;
vi.
the
Class
B
shares
came
with
the
usual
rights
of
common
shares;
Vil.
the
Class
C
shares:
(I)
were
non-voting
shares;
(11)
were
retractable
at
the
market
value
received
by
the
company
in
consideration
of
their
issue;
and
(III)
carried
the
right
to
a
cumulative
10%
dividend
calculated
based
on
the
redemption
price,
and
this
right
was
held
in
preference
to
the
Class
A,
B
and
D
shares;
and
viii.
the
Class
D
shares
came
with
the
same
rights,
privileges
and
restrictions
as
the
Class
C
shares,
but
the
dividend
was
9%
and
had
to
be
paid
in
preference
to
the
Class
A
and
B
shares;
(k)
on
July
31,
1990
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
Nadeau
converted
their
Class
A
shares
into
new
Class
C
and
D
shares
at
the
following
values:
|
No.
of
|
|
|
shares
|
FMV
|
ACB
|
Legal
paid-
|
|
up
capital
|
Appellant
|
6,100C
|
$467,687
|
$467,687
|
$6,100
|
Claude
Nadeau
|
5,900D
|
$452,353
|
$400,000
|
$5,900
|
PER
SHARE
|
|
$76.67
|
$76.67
|
$1.00
|
(D
on
August
8,
1990,
2757-6958
Québec
Inc.
(“2757-6958")
subscribed
and
paid
$460,000
for
one
Class
C
share
in
the
company,
and
the
company’s
Class
C
paid-up
capital
thus
rose
from
$6,100
to
$466,100
while
the
paid-up
capital
of
each
share,
which
had
been
$1.00,
became
$76.40
(($460,000
+
$6,100)/6,101);
(m)
2757-6958
borrowed
$460,000
from
the
National
Bank
of
Canada
(“the
Bank”)
payable
on
a
demand
note
guaranteed
by
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
Nadeau;
(n)
on
August
9,
1990
the
company
redeemed
the
Class
C
share
held
by
2757-6958
for
$460,000
and
2757-6958
repaid
the
Bank
and
paid
$198.49
in
interest:
(o)
2757-6958
reported
receiving
a
deemed
dividend
of
$459,924
in
1990,
and
as
of
the
date
of
the
assessment
it
had
engaged
in
no
transactions
other
than
the
ones
mentioned
above;
(p)
on
August
17,
1990
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
Nadeau
agreed
as
shareholders
in
the
company
to
have
the
company
redeem
407
of
the
appellant’s
Class
C
shares
each
year
beginning
in
1990
and
for
the
following
13
years,
and
402
shares
in
the
fifteenth
year,
at
a
price
of
$76.67
a
share;
(q)
the
appellant
asked
the
company
to
redeem
the
Class
C
shares
on
the
following
dates:
|
|
Date
|
Number
of
shares
|
August
20,
1990
|
237
shares
|
December
28,
1990
|
170
shares
|
April
24,
199]
|
136
shares
|
August
29,
199]
|
136
shares
|
December
26,
1991]
|
135
shares
|
(r)
as
a
consequence
of
the
aforementioned
series
of
transactions
a
tax
benefit
was
conferred
on
the
appellant
and
the
Minister
considered
that
the
increase
in
the
paid-up
capital
of
the
Class
C
shares
from
$1.00
to
$76.40
a
share
was
an
abuse.
(S)
as
the
appellant
did
not
report
the
disposition
of
the
said
Class
C
shares
in
her
tax
returns
for
the
1990
and
1991
taxation
years,
the
Minister
considered
that
there
had
been
a
deemed
dividend
of
$38,498
in
each
of
those
years;
(t)
the
reassessments
made
by
the
Minister
on
June
9,
1994
for
the
1990
and
1991
taxation
years
do
not
violate
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
After
admitting
and
subsequently
repeating
that
the
alleged
facts
were
correct,
the
appellant
maintained
that
the
tax
planning
arrangements
at
issue
had
been
devised
and
carried
out
by
experts
in
taxation
and
that
this
had
been
done
in
strict
compliance
with
all
provisions
of
the
Act.
She
accordingly
concluded
that
the
respondent
had
arbitrarily
applied
the
tax
avoidance
provisions
and
in
the
same
breath
argued
on
the
basis
of
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
that
she
was
being
treated
unfairly
and
in
a
completely
discriminatory
manner
because
of
the
mother-
son
relationship.
Claude
Nadeau
constantly
repeated
that
everything
was
done
in
a
proper,
legitimate
and
legal
fashion:
he
argued
that
the
Department
could
not
make
reassessments
and
that
the
said
assessments
should
thus
be
vacated
because
they
were
improper,
unfair
and
discriminatory.
The
appellant
adduced
no
real
evidence
in
support
of
her
arguments;
her
submissions
were
confined
to
repeating
that
if
Claude
Nadeau’s
mother
had
sold
to
a
third
party
her
tax
burden
would
have
been
considerably
reduced.
Although
the
Court
insisted
that
she
explain
how
she
had
reached
her
conclusions,
the
appellant
was
unable
to
give
a
clear,
precise
and
coherent
explanation
of
the
basis
for
her
arguments.
The
content
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal
signed
on
September
15,
1997
was
much
more
complete
and
elaborate
than
the
evidence
submitted
to
the
Court,
which
consisted
primarily
of
her
son
Claude’s
testimony.
I
therefore
think
it
is
worth
reproducing
the
content
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
September
15,
1997:
[TRANSLATION]
Ste-Julie,
September
15,
1997
Revenue
Canada
500
Place
D’
Armes
Bureau
1800
MONTREAL,
QUEBEC
H2Y
2W2
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
Lyse
Nadeau
SIN:
212-910-418
Dear
Sir/Madam:
With
reference
to
the
Notification
of
Confirmation,
form
T-2008A,
dated
August
25,
1997,
by
Claude
Grégoire,
Chief
of
Appeals,
Montérégie-Rive-Sud
T.S.O.,
we
are
appealing
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
under
the
“informal
procedure”.
The
Minister
stated:
That
the
series
of
transactions
by
which
the
common
shares
of
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
were
converted
to
Class
[[C]]
shares,
with
immediate
issue
and
redemption
of
one
such
share
held
by
2757-6958
Québec
Inc.,
took
place
in
such
circumstances
that
the
transaction
is
an
avoidance
transaction
with
the
meaning
of
s.
245(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act;
you
are
therefore
deemed,
pursuant
to
s.
84(3)
of
the
Act,
to
have
received
a
dividend
amounting
to
$30,798
for
each
of
the
years
1990
and
1991
at
the
time
of
the
acquisition
by
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
of
Class
[[C]]
shares
belonging
to
you.
We
are
appealing
because
the
result
of
the
series
of
transactions
was
the
same
as
if
Ms.
Nadeau
had
disposed
of
her
shares
to
a
third
party.
This
transaction
was
not
contrary
to
the
Act.
It
is
not
an
abuse
of
the
Act
read
as
a
whole.
The
Act
contains
a
number
of
specific
rules
which
do
not
apply
in
our
case.
The
non-application
of
these
various
rules
cannot
constitute
an
abuse
having
regard
to
the
Act
read
as
a
whole.
The
Act
is
incorrect:
these
transactions
cannot
result
in
an
abuse
having
regard
to
the
Act
when
the
Act
is
abusing
someone.
Under
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
and
territorial
governments
must
respect
this
Charter,
which
protects,
among
other
things,
the
equality
rights
of
every
individual.
By
applying
the
general
anti-avoidance
provision
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reduced
the
paid-up
share
capital,
which
meant
that
the
redemption
produced
a
dividend
instead
of
a
capital
gain.
The
application
of
this
anti-avoidance
rule
is
contrary
to
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms,
section
15(1)
of
which
reads
as
follows:
Equality
rights:
Every
individual
is
equal
before
and
under
the
law
and
has
the
right
to
the
equal
protection
and
equal
benefit
of
the
law
without
discrimination
...
based
on
race....
Accordingly,
there
has
been
discrimination
here
and,
as
we
have
been
injured
by
the
anti-avoidance
provision,
we
are
applying
to
your
Court
as
provided
for
in
s.24(1)
of
the
Charter:
Enforcement:
Anyone
whose
rights
or
freedoms,
as
guaranteed
by
this
Charter,
have
been
infringed
or
denied
may
apply
to
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
obtain
such
remedy
as
the
court
considers
appropriate
and
just
in
the
circumstances.
This
is
why:
as
this
transaction
was
at
the
fair
market
value,
which
the
Minister
accepted,
it
conferred
no
greater
tax
benefit
on
Ms.
Nadeau
than
if
she
had
disposed
of
her
shares
to
a
third
party.
To
sum
up:
why
would
Ms.
Nadeau
be
taxed
on
the
proceeds,
the
benefit
of
her
30
years’
work
with
Delgrave
Meubles,
and
why
should
she
pay
tax
on
a
(dividend)
share
retraction
by
someone
who
is
related
to
her
when
if
she
had
sold
to
a
stranger
it
would
be
regarded
as
a
disposition
of
shares
(capital
gain)
to
a
third
party
and
tax-free.
This
is
an
infringement
of
individual
rights
and
freedoms
and
we
ask
that
you
correct
this
injustice.
LYSE
NADEAU
LN/sp
In
court
the
appellant’s
agent
essentially
made
gratuitous
statements,
referring
constantly
to
a
handwritten
document
which,
according
to
him,
contained
the
essence
of
the
appellant’s
arguments.
In
view
of
the
importance
attached
by
the
appellant
to
this
document,
which
moreover
made
up
the
gist
of
the
evidence
(Exhibit
A-1),
I
feel
that
it
too
should
be
reproduced.
It
reads
as
follows:
[TRANSLATION]
Your
Honour,
we
do
not
deny
the
Minister’s
arguments,
as
the
result
of
the
series
of
transactions
was
the
same
as
if
Mrs.
Nadeau
had
disposed
of
her
shares
to
a
third
party;
however,
we
contest
his
conclusion.
We
have
not
contravened
the
Act
in
applying
certain
of
its
provisions
but
have
merely
structured
the
truth
as
permitted
by
the
Act,
so
as
to
maximize
the
tax
benefit
for
both
the
seller
and
the
purchaser.
In
equity,
the
transaction
is
beyond
reproach.
However,
because
the
seller
is
Mrs.
Nadeau
and
the
purchaser,
myself,
her
son,
there
is
a
presumption
by
the
Minister
of
I
don’t
know
what,
fraud
or
guilt?
But
the
[illegible]
in
that
Mrs.
Nadeau
has
been
very
harshly
penalized.
If
the
purchaser
were
anyone
else,
someone
not
related,
and
Mrs.
Nadeau
made
a
capital
gain,
the
same
thing
would
happen
as
when
we
bought
the
Maurice
Delgrave
Inc.
business
in
1982,
that
is,
the
former
owner
and
founder
Maurice
Delgrave
made
a
capital
gain.
In
this
case,
the
Minister’s
reasoning,
made
possible
only
by
the
general
antiavoidance
provision,
which
allows
the
tax
authorities
to
ignore
the
application
of
any
other
provision
of
the
Act,
is
in
violation
of
s.
15(1)
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms,
which
states
that:
Every
individual
...
has
the
right
to
the
...
equal
benefit
of
the
law.
In
this
case
the
conclusion
based
on
the
Minister’s
reasoning
is
an
improper,
unfair,
discriminatory
and
incorrect
application
of
the
tax
system.
All
we
are
asking
is
to
be
treated
fairly
and
equitably,
that
is,
as
Mrs.
Nadeau
would
be
treated
if
she
had
disposed
of
her
shares
to
a
third
party.
All
we
are
asking
is
the
equal
benefit
of
the
law,
the
benefit
of
a
disposition
of
shares
to
a
third
party.
Thank
you.
At
the
hearing
the
Court
twice
told
the
appellant
and
her
agent
that
the
burden
of
proof
was
on
them.
Thus,
I
clearly
told
them
that
they
had
to
show
on
a
balance
of
probabilities
that
their
arguments
were
valid.
The
evidence
established
that
the
appellant
intended
to
sell
her
51
percent
of
the
shares
to
her
son
Claude
rather
than
to
a
third
party:
her
son,
Claude
Nadeau,
himself
held
49
percent
of
the
shares
in
the
same
company,
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée.
However,
the
appellant
and
her
son
had
very
specific
concerns
about
how
to
conduct
the
transaction
and
especially
about
the
tax
consequences
and
implications
of
the
transaction.
They
wanted
the
capital
gain
from
the
shares
to
benefit
the
appellant’s
son.
Since
the
son
did
not
have
the
financial
ability
to
pay
the
value
of
the
shares,
it
became
necessary,
and
also
safer
for
the
appellant,
for
her
shares
to
be
purchased
by
the
company
first.
The
appellant
and
her
son
therefore
instructed
the
firm
Maheu
and
Noiseux
to
organize
and
plan
the
transfer
of
the
shares,
the
result
of
which
would
enable
them
to
attain
the
following
specific
objectives:
•
the
appellant
would
receive
fair
market
value
for
her
shares;
•
her
son
Claude
would
receive
the
capital
gain
from
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée;
•
the
appellant
would
pay
a
minimum
of
tax
as
a
result
of
the
transfer
of
her
shares;
and
•
the
appellant
and
her
son
Claude
would
benefit
from
the
capital
gains
exemption.
These
instruction
required
painstaking,
complex
work.
The
experts
prepared
various
scenarios,
which
they
submitted
to
the
appellant
and
her
son.
The
appellant
adopted
the
plan
with
the
least
costly
consequences
in
terms
of
the
tax
burden,
and
she
did
so
even
though
the
proposed
plan
mentioned
the
possibility
that
it
might
be
questioned
under
the
general
antiavoidance
provision
set
out
in
s.
245(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“the
Act”),
which
reads
as
follows:
Where
a
transaction
is
an
avoidance
transaction,
the
tax
consequences
to
a
person
shall
be
determined
as
is
reasonable
in
the
circumstances
in
order
to
deny
a
tax
benefit
that,
but
for
this
section,
would
result,
directly
or
indirectly,
from
that
transaction
or
from
a
series
of
transactions
that
includes
that
transaction.
The
details
of
the
adopted
scenario
were
set
out
in
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal,
the
relevant
paragraphs
of
which
were
reproduced
earlier
in
these
reasons.
The
respondent
raised
the
following
three
grounds
in
support
of
the
merits
of
the
assessment:
•
an
incomplete
transaction;
•
the
use
of
separate
share
classes;
and
¢
application
of
the
general
anti-avoidance
provision.
The
respondent
first
argued
that
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
could
not
increase
the
paid-up
capital
of
Class
C
shares
on
August
8,
1990,
as
the
said
shares
had
not
been
paid
for
when
2757-6958
Québec
Inc.
gave
it
a
cheque
in
the
amount
of
$460,000.
Arguing
that
there
had
been
no
increase
in
the
paid-up
capital
of
Class
C
shares,
the
respondent
maintained
that
the
capital
remained
at
$6,100,
which
corresponded
to
$1.00
a
share.
She
accordingly
concluded
that
the
redemption
of
the
shares
in
1990
and
1991
should
result
in
a
deemed
dividend
of
$75.67
per
share
pursuant
to
s.
84(3)
of
the
Act.
In
arriving
at
the
deemed
dividend
of
$75.67
per
share,
the
respondent
relied
on
s.
123.61
of
the
Companies
Act,
stating
that
a
company
may
increase
the
amount
of
its
issued
and
paid-up
share
capital
only
if
a
by-law
to
that
effect
is
adopted,
except
where
the
increase
is
a
result
of
payment
for
shares.
She
further
relied
on
the
rule
of
precedent
that
the
substance
of
a
transaction
must
take
precedence
over
its
form.
It
was
very
clearly
established
in
the
instant
case
that
the
transaction
of
August
8
was
certainly
genuine,
but
completely
devoid
of
meaning,
in
that
the
issue
of
a
single
share
in
return
for
a
cheque
for
$460,000
had
and
was
intended
to
have
only
one
purpose:
ensuring
logic
and
continuity
in
order
to
attain
the
desired
end.
This
observation
is
supported
in
particular
by
significant
facts
which
leave
no
room
for
ambiguity.
The
amount
of
$460,000
at
issue
essentially
proved
to
be
simply
an
accounting
transaction,
with
no
real
effect
on
the
parties
associated
with
the
transactions.
The
intention
was
that
within
a
few
hours
after
the
share
was
issued,
it
would
be
redeemed
and
the
amount
of
the
consideration
would
immediately
be
returned
to
the
bank,
which
had
loaned
it.
Not
only
did
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
stand
surety
for
the
$460,000
loan,
it
left
the
amount
of
the
loan
as
security
for
the
loan.
In
other
words,
the
money
did
not
leave
the
bank
even
though
the
company
paid
out
$198.49
in
interest.
The
delivery
of
the
$460,000
cheque
by
2757-6958
Québec
Inc.
to
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
proved
to
be
the
payment
for
the
single
share
issued
by
L.
&
C.
Nadeau,
which
suggests
that
the
paid-up
capital
of
the
Class
C
shares
had
been
increased
by
$460,000.
Was
this
a
genuine
increase?
The
answer
is
important
since
this
is
determinative
as
to
whether
form
took
precedence
over
substance.
The
$460,000
amount
was
certainly
a
payment
in
form,
but
was
it
one
in
substance?
Certain
articles
of
the
Civil
Code
of
Lower
Canada
dealing
with
the
concept
of
payment
are
relevant
here:
1139.
By
payment
is
meant
not
only
the
delivery
of
a
sum
of
money
in
satisfaction
of
an
obligation,
but
the
performance
of
any
thing
to
which
the
parties
are
respectively
obliged.
1140.
Every
payment
presupposes
a
debt;
what
has
been
paid
where
there
is
no
debt
may
be
recovered.
There
can
be
no
recovery
of
what
has
been
paid
in
voluntary
discharge
of
a
natural
obligation.
In
the
instant
case
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée
received
the
cheque
but
the
evidence
showed
that
it
was
never
free
to
dispose
of
the
amount
as
it
wished:
it
had
been
agreed
in
advance
that
the
loan
would
simply
be
repaid.
All
the
facts
surrounding
the
various
transactions
fully
support
the
respondent’s
argument
that
the
continuity
of
the
transactions
had
only
one
purpose:
decreasing
the
tax
burden.
In
other
words,
form
was
the
distinguishing
characteristic
of
the
transactions;
there
were
no
genuine
effects
on
or
consequences
for
the
asset
bases
of
the
entities
in
question.
These
same
facts
also
support
the
respondent’s
second
argument,
that
this
was
an
incomplete
transaction.
Although
the
respondent
also
alleged
a
departure
from
the
rule
that
shares
in
the
same
class
should
be
equal,
I
will
now
turn
to
the
respondent’s
final
argument,
that
the
general
anti-avoidance
provision
should
be
applied.
This
is
an
extremely
interesting
point
which
has
not
been
considered
often
by
the
courts.
The
respondent
cited
two
leading
cases
dealing
with
s.
245
of
the
Act:
McNichol
v.
R.,
94-1577(IT)G,
94-1578(IT)G,
94-1579(IT)G
and
94-
1667(IT)G
[reported
[1997]
2
C.T.C.
2088
(T.C.C.)];
and
RMM
Ca-
nadian
Enterprises
Inc.
v.
R.,
94-1732(IT)G
and
94-1753(IT)G
[reported
[1998]
1
C.T.C.
2300
(T.C.C.)].
To
begin
with,
I
feel
it
is
worth
reproducing
the
provisions
dealing
with
tax
avoidance:
245.(2)
Where
a
transaction
is
an
avoidance
transaction,
the
tax
consequences
to
a
person
shall
be
determined
as
is
reasonable
in
the
circumstances
in
order
to
deny
a
tax
benefit
that,
but
for
this
section,
would
result,
directly
or
indirectly,
from
that
transaction
or
from
a
series
of
transactions
that
includes
that
transaction.
(3)
An
avoidance
transaction
means
any
transaction
(a)
that,
but
for
this
section,
would
result,
directly
or
indirectly,
in
a
tax
benefit,
unless
the
transaction
may
reasonably
be
considered
to
have
been
undertaken
or
arranged
primarily
for
bona
fide
purposes
other
than
to
obtain
the
tax
benefit;
or
(b)
that
is
part
of
a
series
of
transactions,
which
series,
but
for
this
section,
would
result,
directly
or
indirectly,
in
a
tax
benefit,
unless
the
transaction
may
reasonably
be
considered
to
have
been
undertaken
or
arranged
primarily
for
bona
fide
purposes
other
than
to
obtain
the
tax
benefit.
(4)
For
greater
certainty,
subsection
(2)
does
not
apply
to
a
transaction
where
it
may
reasonably
be
considered
that
the
transaction
would
not
result
directly
or
indirectly
in
a
misuse
of
the
provisions
of
this
Act
or
an
abuse
having
regard
to
the
provisions
of
this
Act,
other
than
this
section,
read
as
a
whole.
In
order
to
conclude
that
the
anti-avoidance
provisions
apply,
the
following
three
elements
are
required:
•
a
tax
benefit;
•
an
avoidance
transaction;
and
•
misuse
of
or
abuse
having
regard
to
the
Act.
The
term
“tax
benefit”
is
defined
as
follows:
...a
reduction,
avoidance
or
deferral
of
tax
or
other
amount
payable
under
this
Act
or
an
increase
in
a
refund
of
tax
or
other
amount
under
this
Act....
The
evidence
on
this
point
is
conclusive:
the
appellant
admitted
adopting
the
plan
proposed
by
her
experts
because
of
the
tax
benefit.
This
plan
enabled
the
appellant
to
withdraw
the
surpluses
accumulated
in
the
company
without
paying
tax
on
a
dividend.
The
Court
must
next
consider
whether
the
transaction
which
resulted
in
the
tax
benefit
should
be
excluded
from
the
operation
of
s.
245(3)
of
the
Act
on
the
basis
that
the
transaction
can
reasonably
be
considered
to
have
been
undertaken
or
arranged
primarily
for
bona
fide
purposes.
It
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
obtaining
of
a
tax
benefit
is
not
regarded
as
a
bona
fide
purpose.
Although
it
is
legitimate
and
natural
for
taxpayers
to
organize
and
plan
their
affairs
in
order
to
pay
as
little
tax
as
possible,
they
should
not
initiate
actions
intended
solely
to
reduce
the
amount
of
tax
they
would
otherwise
pay.
In
other
words,
a
taxpayer
cannot
be
a
party
to
an
act
or
transaction
the
only
bona
fide
purpose
of
which
is
to
obtain
a
tax
benefit
without
running
the
risk
of
having
his
or
her
case
treated
as
if
the
act
or
transaction
had
never
taken
place.
The
following
comment
by
Judge
Bonner
in
McNichol,
supra,
amplified
our
understanding
of
these
provisions:
It
is
not
necessary
or
helpful
to
attempt
to
restate
the
subsection
245(4)
test
in
language
consistent
with
each
word
of
both
the
French
and
English
language
versions.
It
is
sufficient
to
note
that
on
any
view
of
subsection
245(4).
the
transaction
now
in
question,
which
was,
or
was
part
of,
a
classic
example
of
surplus
stripping,
cannot
be
excluded
from
the
operation
of
subsection
(2).
After
all,
Bee’s
surplus
was,
at
the
very
least,
indirectly
used
to
fund
the
price
paid
to
the
appellants
for
their
shares.
The
appellants
have
sought
to
realize
the
economic
value
of
Bec’s
accumulated
surplus
by
means
of
a
transaction
characterized
as
a
sale
of
shares
giving
rise
to
a
capital
gain
in
preference
to
a
distribution
of
a
liquidating
dividend
taxable
under
section
84.
The
scheme
of
the
Act
calls
for
the
treatment
of
distributions
to
shareholders
of
corporate
property
as
income.
The
form
of
such
distributions
is
generally
speaking
irrelevant.
On
the
one
hand
a
distribution
formally
made
by
a
corporation
to
its
shareholders
as
a
dividend
to
which
the
shareholders
are
entitled
by
virtue
of
the
contractual
rights
inherent
in
their
shares
is
income
under
paragraph
12(1)(/)
of
the
Act.
On
the
other
hand,
the
legislature
by
section
15
of
the
Act,
which
expands
the
former
section
8,
demonstrates
the
existence
of
a
legislative
scheme
to
tax
as
income
all
distributions
by
a
corporation
to
a
shareholder,
even
those
of
a
less
orthodox
nature
than
an
ordinary
dividend.
The
former
subsection
247(1)
of
the
Act
was,
prior
to
the
enactment
of
section
245,
one
of
the
legislative
responses
to
the
practice
of
surplus
stripping.
It
was
repealed
simultaneously
with
the
coming
into
force
of
section
245
and
I
therefore
do
not
suggest
that
it
applies
to
the
present
case.
However,
I
do
suggest
that
the
repeal
cannot
be
regarded
as
a
basis
for
a
conclusion
that
the
legislature
intended
to
relax
the
strictures
against
surplus
stripping.
In
light
of
the
foregoing,
subsection
245(4)
cannot
be
invoked
by
the
appellants.
The
transaction
in
issue
which
was
designed
to
effect,
in
everything
but
form,
a
distribution
of
Bee’s
surplus
results
in
a
misuse
of
sections
38
and
110.6
and
an
abuse
of
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
read
as
a
whole,
which
contemplate
that
distributions
of
corporate
property
to
shareholders
are
to
be
treated
as
income
in
the
hands
of
the
shareholders.
It
is
evident
from
section
245
as
a
whole
and
paragraph
245(5)(c)
in
particular
that
the
section
is
intended
inter
alia
to
counteract
transactions
which
do
violence
to
the
Act
by
taking
advantage
of
a
divergence
between
the
effect
of
the
transaction,
viewed
realistically,
and
what,
having
regard
only
to
the
legal
form
appears
to
be
the
effect.
For
purposes
of
section
245,
the
characterization
of
a
transaction
cannot
be
taken
to
rest
on
form
alone.
I
must
therefore
conclude
that
section
245
of
the
Act
applies
to
this
transaction.
In
RMM
Canadian
Enterprises
Inc.
v.
R.,
supra,
at
p.
26,
Judge
Bowman
added:
...the
Income
Tax
Act.
read
as
a
whole,
envisages
that
a
distribution
of
corporate
surplus
to
shareholders
is
to
be
taxed
as
a
payment
of
dividends.
A
form
of
transaction
that
is
otherwise
devoid
of
any
commercial
objective,
and
that
has
as
its
real
purpose
the
extraction
of
corporate
surplus
and
the
avoidance
of
the
ordinary
consequences
of
such
a
distribution,
is
an
abuse
of
the
Act
as
a
whole.
Did
the
transaction
in
the
instant
case
pursuant
to
which
2757-6958
Québec
Inc.
subscribed
for
a
single
Class
C
share
in
the
capital
stock
of
the
other
company,
L.
&
C.
Nadeau
Ltée,
have
a
bona
fide
purpose?
What
was
its
purpose?
I
have
to
answer
this
question
in
the
negative,
since
the
evidence
clearly
showed
that
the
sole
underlying
purpose
had
but
one
real
end,
the
tax
benefit.
The
aim
of
the
transaction
was
essentially
to
redeem
the
appellant’s
shares
in
such
a
way
that
the
amount
involved
would
not
be
dealt
with
as
a
dividend,
thereby
evading
the
inherent
consequences.
The
evidence
in
the
instant
case
provided
no
explanation
or
justification
from
which
it
could
be
concluded
that
the
transaction
was
needful
or
had
given
rise
to
consequences
other
than
the
tax
benefit.
Everything
was
arranged
to
strip
the
company
of
its
surpluses,
which
in
itself
is
sufficient
to
conclude
that
there
was
an
abuse
having
regard
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act.
By
means
of
several
of
its
provisions
the
Act
provides
that
a
shareholder
cannot
withdraw
surpluses
accumulated
in
a
company
over
and
above
the
paid-up
capital
other
than
by
means
of
a
dividend.
Consequently,
any
transaction
or
series
of
transactions
designed
to
achieve
indirectly
what
the
Act
does
not
permit
an
individual
to
do
directly
is
an
abuse
of
the
Act.
Any
payment
in
the
form
of
a
dividend
is
subject
to
tax.
The
rule
is
therefore
that
a
corporation
cannot
divest
itself
of
accumulated
surpluses
to
vest
them
in
its
shareholders
other
than
by
declaring
a
dividend.
Obviously,
paid-up
or
invested
capital
is
not
part
of
a
surplus.
In
the
instant
case
the
capital
invested
by
the
appellant
for
the
Class
C
shares
was
$6,100.
At
the
time
of
the
transaction
in
1990
her
shares
had
a
fair
market
value
of
$467,687.
Any
withdrawal
relating
to
the
difference
had
to
be
regarded
as
a
dividend.
The
evidence
in
fact
showed
that
the
transaction
essentially
consisted
of
enabling
the
appellant
to
strip
the
company
of
accumulated
surpluses
other
than
by
means
of
a
dividend.
The
appellant
has
not
proven
that
this
did
not
constitute
an
abuse
having
regard
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act.
She
essentially
argued
first
that
the
entire
transaction
was
legal,
and
second
that
the
respondent’s
reliance
on
the
general
anti-avoidance
provision
was
discriminatory
and
contrary
to
s.
15(1)
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
Here
again,
the
evidence
was
not
very
persuasive
since
the
appellant
argued
essentially
that
she
had
been
penalized
for
selling
to
her
son.
How,
and
why?
The
appellant
did
not
show
this
and
did
not
see
fit
to
elaborate
or
to
provide
reasons
to
support
her
arguments.
The
respondent
argued,
first,
that
this
Charter
issue
could
not
be
pleaded
as
notice
to
that
effect
had
not
been
given
to
the
Attorney
General
of
Canada.
It
appears
that
notices
were
in
fact
given,
but
they
may
have
been
misdirected.
I
do
not
think
the
appellant
can
rely
on
s.
15(1)
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms,
dealing
with
equality
rights,
to
challenge
the
anti-avoidance
provision
contained
in
s.
245
of
the
Act.
At
the
time
the
appellant
decided
to
hand
control
of
the
company
over
to
her
son,
a
number
of
scenarios
were
available
for
giving
effect
to
her
intention.
Like
any
sensible
and
well-informed
person,
she
consulted
specialists
for
advice
and
guidance
as
to
how
all
her
objectives
might
be
attained.
The
fact
that
her
son
was
at
the
centre
of
the
eventual
purchase
undoubtedly
tended
to
make
her
more
flexible:
in
other
words,
the
appellant
was
undoubtedly
more
co-operative
and
conciliatory
as
she
had
a
clear
and
natural
interest
in
having
the
business
remain
in
the
family.
That
being
so,
the
experts
she
hired
studied
and
analysed
all
the
information
and
considered
the
special
concerns
of
the
appellant
and
her
son;
they
suggested
various
scenarios,
describing
the
tax
consequences
of
each.
The
plan
adopted
was
clearly
the
least
costly
in
terms
of
taxes
payable,
although
there
were
risks
as
to
what
the
tax
authorities
would
eventually
think
of
it.
After
failing
the
test,
the
appellant
pleaded
discrimination
under
s.
15(1)
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
I
do
not
feel
this
argument
is
valid,
since
the
assessment
resulted
essentially
from
the
choice
she
herself
made
and
accepted
in
full
knowledge
of
the
consequences.
In
my
view,
the
following
passage
from
the
decision
of
Judge
Bowman
of
this
Court
in
Hover
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
90-2976(IT),
at
pages
3-5
of
the
English
version,
is
both
appropriate
and
relevant
[reported
(1992),
[1993]
1
C.T.C.
2585
(T.C.C.)]:
In
a
broad
sense
it
might
be
said
that
any
fiscal
law
that
dictates
different
treatment
for
different
classes
of
persons
discriminates
among
those
classes.
Yet
the
Act
abounds
in
such
distinctions.
Farmers
are
treated
differently
from
those
engaged
in
manufacturing
who
in
turn
receive
a
different
treatment
from
those
engaged
in
the
resource
industry.
Employees
are
treated
differently
from
persons
in
business.
Married
persons
are
accorded
treatment
that
differs
from
that
accorded
to
single
persons.
It
must
be
recognized
that
taxing
statutes
have
economic
and
social
objectives
that
far
transcend
the
mere
raising
of
money
and
it
is
difficult
to
conceive
of
any
way
in
which
a
modern
industrialized
state
such
as
Canada
could
avoid
making
such
distinctions
in
its
fiscal
legislation.
Such
distinctions
may
appear
superficially
to
be
arbitrary
and
possibly
unfair
and
the
appellant
has
raised
squarely
whether
the
category
to
which
the
Minister’s
assessment
under
section
31
relegates
him
in
the
fiscal
scheme
of
things
infringes
upon
his
right
of
equality
under
the
Charter.
In
considering
this
question,
one
cannot
view
section
31
in
isolation
or
attempt
to
excise
it
from
the
complex
code
that
governs
farmers
generally
under
the
Act.
It
is
not
only
category
II
farmers
that
are
singled
out
for
special
treatment.
Farmers
generally
enjoy
a
variety
of
advantages
not
accorded
to
other
taxpayers
such,
to
mention
only
a
few,
as
the
right
to
use
the
cash
basis
of
accounting,
family
farm
rollovers,
accelerated
capital
cost
allowance
on
certain
property,
current
deductibility
of
certain
expenses
that
would
otherwise
be
regarded
as
capital,
block
averaging,
and
the
exemption
from
the
requirement
to
make
quarterly
installments.
Many
more
examples
might
be
cited
but
they
serve
to
illustrate
the
virtual
impossibility
of
striking
down
as
discriminatory
one
aspect
of
a
complex
code
of
fiscal
legislation
dealing
with
a
particular
segment
of
the
community
without
doing
violence
to
the
overall
scheme
envisaged
by
Parliament.
As
stated
by
McIntyre
J.
in
Andrews
at
p.
303:
lt
is
not
every
distinction
or
differentiation
in
treatment
at
law
which
will
transgress
the
equality
guarantees
of
s.
15
of
the
Charter.
It
is,
of
course,
obvious
that
legislatures
may
-
and
to
govern
effectively
-
must
treat
different
individuals
and
groups
in
different
ways.
Indeed,
such
distinctions
are
one
of
the
main
preoccupations
of
legislatures.
The
classifying
of
individuals
and
groups,
the
mak-
ing
of
different
provisions
respecting
such
groups,
the
application
of
different
rules,
regulations,
requirements
and
qualifications
to
different
persons
is
necessary
for
the
governance
of
modern
society.
For
the
appellant
to
succeed
on
this
aspect
of
his
case
he
must
establish
that
the
discrimination
of
which
he
complains
is
based
upon
the
enumerated
grounds
set
out
in
section
15
of
the
Charter
or
grounds
analogous
thereto.
The
appellant’s
contention
is
that
the
“discrete
and
insular
minority”
2
to
which
he
belongs
is
that
group
of
farmers
who
have
other
sources
of
income
and
that
the
very
fact
of
their
special
treatment
under
section
31
is
sufficient
to
make
the
special
treatment
of
such
a
group
discriminatory
on
grounds
analogous
to
those
enumerated
in
section
15.
I
am,
notwithstanding
Mr.
Shea’s
thorough
and
articulate
submission,
unable
to
accept
this
argument.
There
is
a
world
of
difference
between
persons
who
are
accorded
unequal
treatment
under
the
law
because
of
personal
characteristics
over
which
they
have
no
control
such
as
race,
colour,
sex,
age,
citizenship
or
mental
or
physical
disability
and
persons
who
voluntarily
choose
a
form
of
economic
activity
which
carries
with
it
a
mix
of
fiscal
advantages
and
disadvantages.
The
latter
do
not,
in
my
view,
form
a
discrete
or
insular
minority
in
the
sense
in
which
the
expression
has
been
used
in
Andrews.
It
is
not
open
to
such
persons
to
invoke
the
Charter
to
enable
them
to
avoid
the
fiscal
burdens
of
the
economic
endeavour
that
they
have
chosen
and
yet
retain
the
benefits.
To
give
effect
to
such
a
contention
would
be
to
distort
the
purpose
of
the
Charter’.
'I
do
not
wish
to
be
taken
as
subscribing
to
the
observation
made
by
Galligan
J.
of
the
Ontario
Court
in
Ontario
Public
Service
Employees
Union
et
al.
v.
The
National
Citizens
Coalition
Inc.
et
al.,
87
D.T.C.
5270
at
5272
where
he
said,
in
speaking
of
the
Charter,
that
“It
seems
to
me
to
[sic]
that
it
comes
dangerously
very
close
to
trivializing
that
very
important
constitutional
law,
if
it
is
used
to
get
into
the
weighing
and
balancing
of
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
taxing
statutes.”
The
Charter
is
the
supreme
law
of
Canada.
It
is
fair
to
say
that
the
Income
Tax
Act
has
an
impact
on
more
Canadians
than
any
other
federal
statute.
I
have
difficulty
in
seeing
how
the
Charter
is
trivialized
by
subjecting
so
important
a
piece
of
fiscal
legislation
in
appropriate
cases
to
the
scrutiny
of
the
courts
under
the
Charter.
2
U.S.
v.
Carotene
Prod.
Co.,
304
U.S.,
144
at
152-3,
referred
to
in
Law
Society
of
British
Columbia
v.
Andrews.
^Following
the
argument
of
this
appeal
there
was
drawn
to
my
attention
a
decision
(Re
Finkle
issued
January
19,
1992)
of
Madam
Justice
Reed
of
the
Federal
Court,
sitting
as
umpire
in
an
unemployment
insurance
appeal.
She
dismissed
the
appeal
on
the
basis
that
the
appellant’s
status
as
a
member
of
the
armed
forces
was
not
a
“personal
characteristic”
analogous
to
the
enumerated
grounds
set
out
in
section
15
of
the
Charter
and
that
he
was
not
entitled
to
invoke
section
15
of
the
Charter
to
avoid
the
special
treatment
accorded
him
under
Unemployment
Regulation
14(c).
The
learned
umpire’s
decision
contains
a
useful
analysis
of
this
issue.
I
had
considered
recalling
counsel
to
argue
the
effect
of
the
case
but
since
it
confirmed
the
conclusion
which
I
had
reached
in
any
event
I
did
not
consider
that
I
was
justified
in
doing
so.
See:
/n
re
Lawrence’s
Will
Trusts,
[1972]
Ch.418
at
436-437.
For
all
these
reasons,
the
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.