Income Tax Severed Letters - 2021-10-27

Ruling

2021 Ruling 2020-0852331R3 - Multi-Wing Split-Up Butterfly

Unedited CRA Tags
55(2) 55(3)(b), 55(3.1), 107(2)

Principal Issues: Whether the butterfly dividend is exempt from 55(2) as a result of qualifying under 55(3)(b)?

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Proposed transactions meet the requirements of 55(3)(b).

Conference

15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 1, 2020-0853411C6 F - IFA 2020 Roundtable – T2057 & Functional Currency

Unedited CRA Tags
85; 261
dual-currency filing of s. 85 elections where the transferor and transferee have different tax reporting currencies
different currency reporting of s. 85(1) rollover where one party has elected a functional currency

Principal Issues: Whether the CRA can confirm in which currency amounts reported in form T2057 should be denominated in circumstances where section 85 applies in respect of a property transferred by a transferor that has a tax reporting currency different from that of the transferee.

Position: The CRA requires that two separate forms T2057 be filed. The amounts reported must be denominated in the transferor’s tax reporting currency on the first form T2057 and in the transferee’s tax reporting currency on the second form T2057.

15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 2, 2020-0852741C6 - IFA 2020 - Q2 - WHT on mismatched swap payments

Unedited CRA Tags
212(1)(b), 13(5.2), 16(1), 68.
interest not imputed on mismatched cross-border swap payments

Principal Issues: Whether portion of periodic payment under a swap agreement made to non-arm's length non-resident is considered interest and therefore subject to withholding tax.

Position: Generally, no.

Reasons: The 1984 Position attempts to look to the economic substance of a financial instrument and bifurcate a payment between interest income and section 9 income. This position is difficult to support in light of jurisprudence, provisions of the Act, and many administrative views expressed by Rulings on the taxation of derivative financial instruments. Consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Shell Canada Ltd v the Queen, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622 (SCC), in absence of sham or a provision to the contrary, the better view is that no portion of the swap payment from Canco to NRco can be considered interest, and therefore, withholding tax does not apply.

15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 3, 2020-0853371C6 - IFA 2020 Q3: Draft IC71-17R6, Paragraph 43

Unedited CRA Tags
247(2)(b)
ss. 247(2)(b) and 245(2) treated the same for MAP procedure purposes
Canada does not negotiate away its application of domestic anti-avoidance rules

Principales Questions: 1. Information Circular IC71-17R5 Guidance on Competent Authority Assistance Under Canada’s Tax Conventions is currently being revised. In paragraph 43 of this revised draft information circular, it is stated that paragraph 247(2)(b) is one of the “anti-avoidance provisions of the Act”. Could the CRA elaborate further on its views with respect to this position? 2. In the case where paragraph 247(2)(b) is applied to (re)assess, does the CRA intend to restrict a taxpayer’s right to access the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) provision of the pertinent international tax treaty? If so, would the CRA be willing to provide further details regarding this position?

Position Adoptée: 1. The revisions to IC71-17 have not yet been finalized so no definitive comments can be provided at this time. The CRA confirmed that paragraph 43 of the draft revised IC circulated for consultation is intended to reflect the same position as currently exists in paragraph 27 of IC71 17R5 and reflects existing Competent Authority practice. 2. The CRA considers that paragraph 247(2)(b) of the Act is part of Canada’s anti-avoidance provisions. Therefore, the Canadian Competent Authority will not deny requests under the MAP provisions of an international tax treaty where the (re)assessment relies on paragraph 247(2)(b) of the Act. For those cases where the (re)assessment relies on an anti-avoidance provision of the Act as the primary assessing position, such as section 245 or paragraph 247(2)(b) of the Act, the Canadian Competent Authority will limit itself to forwarding the case to the other competent authority for relief from potential double taxation.

15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 4, 2020-0853391C6 - IFA 2020 Q4: Impact Covid-19 on CRA procedures

COVID-19 has not changed Treaty time limitations
no extension under Bill-20 (re COVID) beyond December 31, 2020

Principal Issues: 1. What is the current CRA work situation in connection with the conduct of international audits and requests for foreign based information? 2. How has the CRA been managing both the Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA) and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) requests in the current environment and what is the plan going forward? 3. Has the Transfer Pricing Review Committee (TPRC) been meeting regularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and what is the plan going forward? 4. As there have been significant domestic and international travel restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, how has the CRA been managing APA and MAP matters with treaty partners? 5. How is the CRA addressing issues surrounding impending treaty-based limitation periods? Have extensions been discussed with treaty partners?

Position: 1. The CRA has resumed a full range of audit work and continues to adapt its practices to reflect the health and economic impacts of COVID-19. On June 23rd, 2020 the CRA launched its National Business Resumption Plan to detail the stages of the resumption of various program and corporate activities and operations that had not resumed during the CRA’s critical services phase under the Business Continuity Plan. Priority continues to be given to actions that are beneficial to the taxpayer or where taxpayers have indicated there is an urgency to advancing their audit. In prioritizing the resumption, focus is placed on higher dollar audits first, audits close to completion, and those with a strategic importance to the Government of Canada, provinces and territories, or our tax treaty partners. 2. APA and MAP requests are continuing to be received and being worked on. Time limits for mandatory arbitration have not changed as communications and negotiations with foreign tax administrations continue to occur through the same virtual means. 3. Yes, the TPRC has been meeting regularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been no delays in scheduling the monthly meetings nor in the decision making process. 4. The CRA developed a webpage on Canada.ca to provide guidance on international income tax issues raised by the COVID-19 crisis. The administrative approach taken by the CRA in addressing these issues is intended to assist taxpayers during this time of crisis. It does not represent any interpretive position or intention to establish any broader policy by the CRA. 5. There is no flexibility to extend treaty based limitation periods and, wherever possible, we have been meeting those deadlines and reassessing in time. For domestic situations, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we processed only high risk reassessments. Reassessments that were close to becoming statute barred were generally in that category, particularly for material issues.

15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 5, 2020-0853401C6 - IFA 2020 Q5: TPM-17 and COVID-19

Canadian governmental COVID assistance likely will not reduce cost under cost-plus transfer-pricing methods
Cdn governmental COVID assistance generally does not reduce cost

Principales Questions: According to CRA’s Transfer Pricing Memorandum on the impact of government assistance on transfer pricing (TPM-17), the cost base should not be reduced by the amount of government assistance received unless there is reliable evidence that arm’s length parties would have done so given the specific facts and circumstances. It is presumed that the Canadian taxpayer will keep the government assistance, unless it can be proven that arm’s length enterprises would effectively share all or part of that assistance.
What are the CRA’s views on the impact and treatment of the COVID-19 related government assistance programs in the context of TPM-17, and whether CRA’s position may in any way be different given the unprecedented business circumstances caused by the pandemic (i.e. what sort of market evidence would CRA expect to see if the taxpayer decides to offset costs against the COVID-19 government assistance received in determining the final transfer pricing charge)?

Position Adoptée: Where government assistance has been received that assists in paying some of the costs of either labor or capital items (depending on the relevant cost base), that assistance will not usually be used to reduce the cost base for the purpose of determining the value provided by the party in the transaction.
The COVID-19 related government assistance is a temporary emergency measure implemented to support Canadians and Canadian businesses facing hardship as a result of the global COVID-19 outbreak. Given the nature of the assistance and circumstances under which it is provided, it is unlikely that market evidence would exist to support that arm’s length enterprises would effectively share all or part of this this type of emergency assistance. Accordingly, COVID-19 related government assistance would be expected to form part of the tax base of the recipients.