News of Note
CRA finds that fees paid to the U.S. or U.K. for access to customer lists were exempt royalties
Email this ContentThe applicable Treaty exempts, from withholding tax, a payment made by a resident of Canada to a U.S. or U.K. resident “for the use of or the right to use… information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.” CRA considered that this exemption would apply to amounts styled as “fees” paid for the right to access lists of customers who had purchased particular types of products.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 15 June 2015 T.I. 2014-0525501E5 under Treaties – Art. 12.
Standard Life has not changed CRA’s view that the fresh start rule can apply to a newly-acquired foreign affiliate
In 2014-0536581I7, CRA found that the fresh start rule can apply to bump the tax basis of the assets of a foreign corporation which is acquired by Canco and thereby becomes a foreign affiliate of Canco which is carrying on an investment business, even though s. 95(2)(k)(ii)(A) references a requirement that the “foreign affiliate” have also carried on that business in the preceding taxation year. CRA considered that this was merely a convenient way of referring to the corporation which now happens to be a foreign affiliate of Canco rather than implying that there was a requirement that it also have been a foreign affiliate of Canco in the preceding year.
In Standard Life, Pizzitelli J took essentially the opposite approach to the interpretation of a similar requirement under s. 138(11.3) – so that it was necessary for the taxpayer to qualify as an "insurer" in the preceding taxation year rather than only in the current year, in order for an asset bump to be available. When this point was raised with the Rulings Directorate, it stated:
[I]n accordance with the textual, contextual and purposive approach…we are of the view that there are substantial differences in interpreting the provisions of subsection 138(11.3) and paragraph 95(2)(k)… as applicable to the relevant facts in the Standard Life case and document 2014-053658. As a result, our conclusions previously reached in document 2014-053658 remain unchanged.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 5 November 2015 Memo 2015-0585381I7 under s. 95(2)(k).
Laval University – Tax Court of Canada finds that an agreement to offer, at a distant date, to license premises to unidentified individuals was deemed to be a real property supply
Tardif J found that two agreements under which Quebec City agreed to pay a $10M grant to Laval University for the expansion of its sports complex and the University agreed that the City populace would have access to the complex for 70% of its operating hours constituted a supply by the University in consideration for the $10M.
He then found that ETA s. 136(1) deemed this to be a supply of immovable property (which therefore was a taxable supply) rather than a potentially exempt supply of movable property or a service. On its face, s. 136(1) assimilates, to real property supplies, licences of real property – whereas, what was at stake here was a promise that at a future date, the University would provide licences of sorts to as-yet unidentified individuals who wanted to exercise or play sports at the complex. Accordingly, this represents an expansive interpretation of s. 136(1).
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Laval University v. The Queen, 2016 CCI 17, under ETA s. 123(1) – consideration, s. 136(1).
Income Tax Severed Letters 27 January 2016
This morning's release of 16 severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
Brookfield Asset Management is spinning off Brookfield Business Partners, L.P. as a taxable dividend
Brookfield Asset Management will be packaging its worldwide business services and industrial operations subsidiaries into a new Bermuda LP subsidiary (“Holding LP”) of a new Bermuda holding LP (Brookfield Business Partners, L.P., or “BBP LP”) and distributing 55% of the non-voting units of BBP LP to its shareholders as a taxable dividend. By virtue of also holding a 45% partnership interest in Holding LP, Brookfield Asset Management initially will have a retained interest in the business of approximately 70%. A Brookfield subsidiary (“BBP GP”) will control BBP LP by virtue of being its GP, and control Holding LP by virtue of the 55% interest of BBP LP in Holding LP being a managing general partner interest. Withholding tax on the dividend will be handled by the applicable percentage of LP units being withheld and sold to Brookfield Asset Management for cash.
BBP GP intends for its central management and control to be outside Canada so that BBP LP and Holding LP will not be subject to SIFT taxation – although it is not clear how much they would have in the way of non-portfolio earnings in any event.
The 2013 spin-off of Brookfield Property Partners, L.P. was quite similar.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of preliminary prospectus of Brookfield Business Partners, L.P. under Spin-Offs – Taxable Dividends.
Foreign affiliate debt forgivenesses are not always benign
The main distinctions between the ordinary and FAPI debt forgiveness regimes is that, under the former, an income inclusion can arise where the debtor does not have sufficient attributes to grind in the year, whereas under the latter, if the debtor has insufficient attributes in the year the debt is forgiven, the excess will be carried forward indefinitely to reduce future attributes rather than generating FAPI.
Although this sounds comforting, taxpayers should be cautious respecting forgiveness of shareholder loans owing by a foreign affiliate, as the s. 15 rule trumps the FAPI debt forgiveness rules.
Taxpayers have a preference to apply forgiven amounts to reduce FAPLs rather than FACLs.
The definition of foreign accrual tax requires that the relevant foreign income tax reasonably be regarded as applicable to the subsection 91(1) amount. It is not obvious whether this condition could be met if foreign tax is paid on a forgiven amount that reduces the debtor's FAPLs or FACLs in a particular year and the debtor realizes FAPI in a future year as a result.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Mark Coleman, Daniel A. Bellefontaine, "Forgiveness, Foreign Affiliates and FAPI: a Framework," Resource Sector Taxation (Federated Press), Vol. X, No. 1, 2015, p.694 under s. 95(2)(g.1), s. 95(1) – foreign accrual property income, s. 15(1.2), and s. 95(1) – foreign accrual tax.
CRA notes that “technically” s. 74.4(2) may be avoided through a stock dividend
CRA noted that s. 74.4(2) would likely apply to transactions in which a small business corporation (Opco) declares a stock dividend, consisting of high-low preferred shares, on its common shares held by an individual (Mr. X), with Mr. X rolling those prefs into a non-SBC (Holdco) held solely by his wife in exchange for Holdco prefs, and Opco then redeeming the prefs held by Holdco.
CRA then acknowledged (following 2014-0538041C6 F), that “technically” s. 74.4(2) would not apply if Opco instead was not a SBC and, following the high-low stock dividend by Opco to Mr. X, what instead happened was that his wife simply subscribed for common shares of Opco – and noted that CRA generally does not comment on GAAR in the context of a technical interpretation.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 8 December 2015 T.I. 2015-0613401E5 F under s. 74.4(2).
CRA accepts that annual dividends by an SBC to a non-SBC are not an indirect transfer of property to the non-SBC by the individual who formed the SBC
An individual does an estate freeze on his small business corporation (“Opco”), so that all its common shares end up being held by a family trust, one of whose beneficiaries is “Holdco,” which is not an SBC. In order that Opco can maintain its SBC status, its earnings are annually dividended out to the Trust, which allocates them all to Holdco. CRA accepts that this annual transfer of property to Holdco does not represent an indirect transfer of property by the individual to a non-SBC (Holdco), so that s. 74.4(2) does not apply.
CRA takes a similar approach where the transaction instead is the individual incorporating his active business, the Holdco subscribing for a separate class of discretionary-dividend shares of the new SBC, and the new SBC annually paying dividends to Holdco on its shares, i.e., CRA again generally considers that this does not represent an indirect transfer of property by the individual to Holdco.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 11 December 2015 T.I. 2015-0601561E5 F under s. 74.4(2).
CRA permits safe income to be allocated based on which class of discretionary shares receives dividends
Where a corporation has different classes of discretionary-dividend common shares, CRA effectively considers that the safe income on hand of the corporation can be allocated to whichever class of shares a discretionary dividend is paid on. For example, if Husband holds 99 Class A common shares of Opco and his estranged wife held 1 Class B common share (issued at the same time as the Class A shares, and entitled to only 1% of the remaining property on liquidation), which she has transferred under s. 85(1) to a new Holdco, CRA will accept that a dividend, which is paid only on the Class B share, comes 100% out of all of Opco’s safe income, so that the dividend is tax-free (subject to Part IV tax considerations). In particular, CRA accepts the proposition that the fair market value of the Class B share immediately before the dividend payment reflects the amount of the declared dividend, and also reflects the safe income that will imminently be distributed on the share.
At the 2015 annual CTF conference, CRA indicated (in Q.6(c)) that where a non-participating discretionary share (e.g., a non-cumulative preferred share) has no accrued gain, then a dividend paid thereon which violates the purpose test cannot benefit from safe income - but, where this occurs, CRA is prepared to accept that the safe income on the common shares of the same corporation will not be reduced. CRA has now essentially confirmed this position, but garnished with more detailed analysis.
CRA declined to express a view as to whether an $8,000 reduction in an accrued capital gain of $120,000 was significant. Probably not much should be read into this.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 3 December 2015 T.I. 2015-0593941E5 F under s. 55(2.1)(c).
Scheuer – Federal Court of Appeal indicates that investors in a gifting tax shelter might be better off suing their own advisors – rather than CRA for issuing a tax shelter number
The taxpayers, who participated in the same gifting tax shelter as Ficek, sued CRA for negligence in issuing a tax shelter registration number to the promoter and in not warning them of potential problems. In finding that their statement of claim should be struck “for failing to assert a cognizable cause of action,” Dawson JA noted that issuance of a tax shelter number was not discretionary (i.e., was required if the specified information was submitted) and that the “written warning tax shelter promoters are mandated by paragraph 237.1(5)(c)… to display” (that the number does not confirm any tax benefits)
is consistent with Parliament’s intent that taxpayers should participate in a tax shelter at their own peril, not at the peril of Canadian taxpayers generally. … The issuers of [the related] opinions, who benefited financially from the provision of their professional advice, are better placed to indemnify the plaintiffs in the event of negligence in the exercise of their professional responsibilities.
…The above conclusions … reflect that the performance of statutory duties does not generally give rise to private law duties of care.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of The Queen v. Scheuer, 2016 FCA 7, under General Concepts – Negligence.