News of Note
CRA may reduce interest income to the recipient when it denies interest deductions on related person loans
Email this ContentIn numerous CRA challenges to interest rates on loans between sister companies, parents and subsidiaries, and in cross border hybrid debt structures, Gosselin and Lynch “have seen significant reductions to interest rates claimed to nominal amounts and in some cases zero.” However, although in theory, the interest income to the creditor could remain fully taxable even following such reduction in the interest deduction, in some files they “have seen CRA apply a policy… to reduce interest income of the recipient entity” by analogy to a two-sided adjustment policy for management fees (see, e.g., 2012-0440071E5).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Marie-Eve Gosselin and Paul Lynch, "A Review of Interest Deductibility Since Ludco," draft 2015 CTF Annual Conference paper under s. 20(1)(c).
Livent – Ontario Court of Appeal finds that a company can hold its auditors liable for failure to detect the company’s own fraud effected through its senior management
Deloitte was unsuccessful in arguing that it was not liable to the receiver for a public company (Livent), for failure to detect the fraudulent misstatement of Livent’s financial statements, because it was the most senior management of Livent who were proactively engaged in the fraud, so that effectively Livent was suing Deloitte for Livent’s own fraud. Blair JA quoted with approval a statement by Lord Mance that “[i]t would lame the very concept of an audit” if the auditor could “defeat a claim for breach of duty in failing to detect managerial fraud at the company’s highest level by attributing to the company the very fraud which the auditor should have detected.”
Hopefully this case is irrelevant to tax practice. It might arguably be relevant if, for example, you provided a withholding tax opinion as a condition to a financing based on factual representations of management which you should have realized were false, and the receiver subsequently sues you for the company’s (grossed-up) Part XIII tax liability.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche (2016), 128 OR (3d) 225 (Ont CA) under General Concepts – Negligence, and General Concepts – Illegality.
Kitco – Quebec Superior Court finds that CRA and ARQ cannot collect pre-CCAA assessments by set-off against post-CCAA refund claims
Paquette J has found that CRA and ARQ could not use their statutory set-off rights to set off input tax credit and input tax refund claims generated by an insolvent company (“Kitco”) after it went into protection under the CCAA against assessments made by them (and disputed by Kitco) in which they denied ITCs and ITRs of $313 million that had been claimed and paid by Kitco before the CCAA proceedings. She found that to permit such set-off would give the Agencies an advantage over the unsecured creditors (by taking all of the post-CCAA credits for themselves) and therefore violate the principle that all unsecured creditors should be treated equally.
She also found that the statutory presumptions (e.g., ETA, s. 299(3)) that assessments are valid and binding did not apply in CCAA proceedings.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Métaux Kitco Inc. v. ARQ and AG, 2016 QCCS 444 under CCAA s. 21 and ETA s. 299(3).
CRA confirms that the basic application of s. 55(2) to s. 84(3) deemed dividends is not altered by the draft amendments
CRA has confirmed that the July 31, 2015 proposed amendments to the s. 55(2) rules will not change some basic propositions:
- A s. 84(3) deemed dividend not exceeding the safe income on hand will be exempted from capital gains treatment.
- Conversely, the amount of a s. 84(3) deemed dividend exceeding the safe income on hand “that is taxable to the party designated by the corporation pursuant to subparagraph 55(5)(f)(i) is deemed to be a separate taxable dividend,” so that s. 55(2) will apply to that separate dividend subject to the Part IV tax and s. 55(3)(a) exceptions. (CRA did not discuss its position under the current legislation that s. 55(5)(f) designations may not be necessary – see 2014-0522991C6).
CRA also noted that under the draft legislation, the application of s. 55(2) to a redemption/repurchase of a share, will result in an addition under draft s. 55(2)(b to the share’s proceeds of disposition – whereas if s. 55(2)(b) does not apply, there will be a deemed capital gain under draft s. 55(2)(c) – without commenting on the wording of draft s. 55(2)(b) now referring to share redemptions/purchases rather than to any share dispositions.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 9 March 2016 T.I. 2016-0630281E5 F under s. 55(2.1)(c), s. 55(5)(f) and s. 55(2)(b).
CRA appears to consider that generally a Canadian enterprise may not pass along the benefit of government assistance to a non-resident affiliate in its transfer pricing
CRA considers that:
When a cost-based transfer pricing methodology is used to determine the transfer price of goods, services, or intangibles sold by a Canadian taxpayer to a non-arm's length non-resident person and the Canadian taxpayer receives government assistance, the cost base should not be reduced by the amount of the government assistance received, unless there is reliable evidence that arm's length parties would have done so given the specific facts and circumstances.
CRA provides an example of a Canadian enterprise providing R&D services to an affiliate at a price equal to cost (as reduced by SR&ED tax credits) plus 10%, so that CRA in the absence of such “reliable evidence” would increase the transfer price to 110% of the gross cost.
It may be difficult or impossible for the Canadian enterprise to find evidence of arm’s length parties passing on the cost reduction from government assistance.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of TPM-17 “The Impact of Government Assistance on Transfer Pricing” under s. 247(2).
Conventional equity forwards likely are not DFAs, and equity derivatives may be held as investments
The definition of “synthetic equity arrangement” (which is used under the July 31, 2015 draft legislation to extend the scope of the dividend rental arrangement rules) excludes agreements that are traded on a “recognized derivative exchange,” subject to anti-avoidance provisions. Although the explanatory notes contemplate that foreign exchanges will be recognized by provincial securities commissions, the commissions instead usually exempt foreign exchanges from the requirement to be recognized or registered.
It is unlikely that the effect of prevailing interest rates on the negotiated (fixed) forward price under an equity forward causes the forward to be a derivative forward agreement, even where the taxpayer is the seller rather than purchaser.
CRA appears to assume that a derivative that is not entered into for hedging purposes is speculative and, therefore, held on income account. This is questionable where a long position under an equity derivative, e.g., a total return swap, has been acquired as an alternative to investing in the underlying equities.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Raj Juneja, “Taxation of equity derivatives,” draft 2015 CTF Annual Conference paper under s. 248(1) – synthetic equity arrangement, s. 248(1) – derivative forward agreement, s. 9 – capital gain v. profit – futures/forwards, s. 212(1)(b), s. 212(1)(d).
CRA confirms that it will be exchanging rulings under BEPS
Yesterday’s budget (after noting that Canada's information exchange agreements "restrict the use of the exchanged information...typically...to the enforcement of tax laws...and...ensure the confidentiality of the information") confirmed “the Government’s intention to implement the BEPS minimum standard for the spontaneous exchange of certain tax rulings” so that CRA “will commence exchanging tax rulings in 2016 with other jurisdictions that have committed to the minimum standard.” CRA indicated today that effective April 1, 2016, it will be providing summaries (and, if so requested, further details) of the contents of the following categories of rulings with the countries of residence of the immediate and ultimate parent and certain other parties (which countries may then ask to receive relevant portions in more detail) - re:
a) preferential regimes (for Canada, including international shipping and certain foreign life insurance operations of a Canadian company);
b) cross-border transfer pricing;
c) downward adjustment not directly reflected in the taxpayers’ accounts;
d) permanent establishments; and
e) related party conduits.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 22 March 2016 Memo 2016-0632941I7 under Article 27.
Income Tax Severed Letters 23 March 2016
This morning's release of four severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
Soutar Décor – Tax Court of Canada finds that seizure of a guarantor’s security constitutes a transfer by the guarantor for s. 160 purposes
Bocock J found that when a bank seized the security (a GIC) provided by a tax debtor to secure his guarantee of a bank loan to his son’s company, this constituted a transfer of property by him to that company for s. 160 purposes. It made no difference that the transfer was involuntary.
This result is broadly consistent with the proposition that payment of another’s debt constitutes payment to that person (see Innovative Installation and Great-West).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of M. Soutar Décor 2000 Ltd. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 62 under s. 160(1).
Kokanee Placer – Tax Court of Canada indicates that a due diligence defence can be raised to a penalty under s. 162(7) for failure to file electronically
A corporation which had marginally more revenue than the $1 million threshold triggering an electronic return-filing requirement was liable for a s. 162(7) penalty for instead filing in paper form even though it had no taxes payable. A mistake as to the electronic filing requirement was a mistake of law and not a defence to the penalty. Paris J also found that although due diligence defences may be raised to s. 162(7) penalties, no such defence was established here.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Kokanee Placer Ltd. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 63 under s. 162(7.2).