26 August 1993 Income Tax Severed Letter 9313002 - Is Non-Resident Required to File Information Returns

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department. Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.

                                          931300
XXXXXXXXXX                                Jim Wilson
                                          (613) 957-2123

Attention: XXXXXXXXXX

August 26, 1993

Dear Sirs:

Re: Investment Income Information Returns

We are writing in reply to your letter of April 26, 1993, addressed to the International Tax Programs Directorate, concerning the meaning of the word "person" in the context of sections 201 to 209 of the Income Tax Regulations (Regulations). In particular, you requested the Department's comments on whether the word "person" in that context is broad enough to require a foreign corporation (not resident or carrying on business in Canada) to issue T5 Supplementary Information Slips to Canadian shareholders of the corporation in respect of dividends paid to such shareholders.

We disagree with the view that the word "person", in the context of Regulations 201 to 209, is limited to an individual, corporation or other entity which is resident in Canada or carrying on business in Canada through a permanent establishment. In our opinion a foreign corporation is a "person" for purposes of Part II of the Regulations. "Person" is defined in section 248 of the Income Tax Act ("Act") to include "any body corporate". The spirit and object of Part II of the Regulations is to ensure that the Department and the taxpayer receive the necessary information concerning those amounts that may be subject to tax under the Act. Accordingly, the meaning of the word "person" in such context is clearly intended by Parliament to apply to all persons making such payments, whether resident in Canada or not. Furthermore, the fact that several provisions in Part II of the Regulations apply only to a "person resident in Canada" (e.g. subsections 202(1) and (2) of the Regulations) supports the supposition that the word "person" in Part II of the Regulations, where used alone, includes both residents and non-residents of Canada.

Since you referred to the decision of the Federal Court— Trial Division in Holiday Luggage MFG. Co. v. The Queen ( 86 DTC 6601), we are of the opinion that the decision attempted to follow the more contemporary doctrines of statutory interpretation and if anything would support the Department's interpretation. In this regard, and as quoted in the Holiday Luggage decision, reference could be made to E.A. Dreidger (Construction of Statutes, 2nd edition, at p. 87) where he put the modern rule succinctly:

"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."

We trust you will find the above comments will be adequate for your purposes.

Yours truly,

for Director Reorganizations and Foreign Division Rulings Directorate Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch