News of Note
A s. 75(2) trust rather than its contributor is the relevant taxpayer for s. 40(3.6)(b) basis adjustment purposes
Email this ContentIf a capital loss on the redemption of trust shares which otherwise would be attributed to a contributor to the trust under s. 75(2) is instead denied under s. 40(3.6) on their redemption, the denied loss will be added to the adjusted cost base of the remaining shares of the corporation in question held by the trust rather than being added to the ACB of any shares of the corporation held by the contributor.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 10 October 2014 APFF Roundtable, Q. 5, 2014-0538241C6 F under s. 40(3.6) and s. 146(1) – earned income.
Olympia Trust – Tax Court of Canada finds that trustee for self-directed RRSPs was liable for failure to withhold under s. 116
A Canadian trust company, which was the trustee for self-directed RRSPs that had purchased shares from non-residents without withholding or receiving s. 116 certificates, was found by Bocock J to be the "purchaser" for s. 116(5) purposes rather than the annuitants, i.e., it was on the hook as the shares were taxable Canadian property.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Olympia Trust Company v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 372 under s. 116(5).
Invesco Canada – Tax Court of Canada finds that GST was not payable on special MFT fee-reduction trust distributions to large investors
A mutual fund trust manager initially charged full management fees to the trusts and paid rebates to large unitholders equal to a portion of the fees. However, when in 1994 CRA indicated (in 9332265) that these refunds would be treated as "inducement payments," to be included in the trusts' incomes under s. 12(2.1) (thereby resulting in double taxation), the arrangements were restructured (in accordance with ATR-65 – see also 2012-0448351E5): the manager reduced the fees which it charged to the trusts; and the declarations of trust were amended to provide that trust distributions equal to those fee reductions would be paid as special distributions on the large investors’ units.
Campbell J rejected CRA's position that GST continued to be collectible on the "gross" fee amounts, i.e., she rejected the proposition that the obligation of the trusts to make the special distributions was part of the consideration received by the manager. The legal form was reasonably good (the obligation to make the special distributions was mostly in the trust deeds), and the parties’ intention was to implement an ATR-65 structure, which required that they be trust distributions.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Invesco Canada Ltd. v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 375 under ETA – s. 153(1) and General Concepts – Evidence.
CRA does not accept average FX rates for capital gains computations
CRA does not accept using average exchange rates (e.g. an annual average) for computing capital gains or losses and requires using the respective spot rates on the days when the costs and disposition expenses were incurred and the proceeds arose.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 10 October 2014 APFF Roundtable, Q. 9, 2014-0538631C6 F under s. 261(1) – relevant spot rate.
CRA finds that an interest in a corporation includes an interest held through another corporation
Although s. 74.4(2) may cause the income attribution rules to apply to an estate freeze effected on a corporation (other than a small business corporation) in favour of a trust with designated beneficiaries (e.g., minor children of the freezor), there is a safe harbour in s. 74.4(4) where inter alia "the only interest that the designated person has in the corporation is a beneficial interest in shares of the corporation held by a trust" and designated person(s) are prohibited from receiving any trust distributions.
CRA interprets "holding" as referring to direct holding (see also 2012-0451411E5 F) whereas it appears to consider that an interest in a corporation includes an interest held through another corporation. For example, if a trust with designated person beneficiaries holds common shares of Opco 1 and 2 directly, the safe harbour can be satisfied – except that if Opco 1 then subscribes for preferred shares of Opco 2, the safe harbour will no longer be available for the trust’s interest in Opco 2 because that interest will be held partly "through" Opco 1.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 7 November 2014 T.I. 2014-0549571E5 F under s. 74.4(4).
CRA rules on a registered charity carrying on a land development business through a trust
A registered charity such as a charitable organization or public foundation is prohibited from carrying on a business (other than a "related business"). CRA ruled that a charitable organization holding vacant lands could indirectly develop the lands as serviced lots suitable for sale to a builder by selling the lands to an LP in which it indirectly participated as limited partner through a newly-formed discretionary trust (with the other named beneficiary being an allied charity) – so that these transactions would not by themselves result in the charitable organization being considered to carry on a business other than a related business. As the trust presumably would distribute its share of the LP profits to the charitable organization, the effect is that the charitable organization can profit on a tax exempt basis from what likely is an unrelated business. CRA also gave a GAAR ruling.
Essentially no reasons were given and no reference was made to s. 108(5), which deems trust distributions to be property income rather than income from a business. At some point, someone may ask whether this means that a charity can carry on any business it wants on an exempt basis through a trust!
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2014 Ruling 2014-0529291R3 F under s. 149.1(2)(a).
The 2013 amendment to s. 42 prevents damages payments made after the filing due date for sales of small business corporation shares to qualify as a business investment loss
Where a taxpayer disposed of small business corporation shares and in a subsequent taxation year paid damages for breach of a covenant in the sale agreement, s. 42(b) formerly deemed the damages payment to be a capital loss from the disposition of the shares, so that it could qualify as a business investment loss. Effective for taxation years ending after 4 November 2010, s. 42 was amended in 2013 so that the payment (if made after the filing due date for the taxation year of the sale) was deemed to be a capital loss from the disposition of property in the abstract rather than from the specific shares, so that such amount could no longer qualify as a BIL.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2 October 2014 2013-0513281E5 F under s. 42.
Income Tax Severed Letters 30 December 2014
This morning's release of five severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
The ordinary Wednesday release schedule will resume next week.
Asset sale by Anderson Energy of non-core gas assets is structured to also transfer $222M of tax losses
Although Anderson Energy is proposing to sell some non-core shallow gas assets to Freehold Royalties for $35M, Freehold also will be transferred $222M in non-capital losses and undepreciated capital cost. This will be accomplished by:
- The Anderson shareholders transferring all their shares to a new holding company (New Anderson)
- Anderson transferring all its core assets to New Anderson effectively as a stated capital reduction (or, to be more precise, selling those assets for New Anderson shares utilizing a s. 85 election, and then transferring the New Anderson shares to New Anderson for cancellation as a stated capital distribution)
- New Anderson selling the Anderson shares to Freehold for $35M in cash (subject to adjustment based on the level of tax attributes)
The Circular states: "By virtue of New Anderson having acquired approximately 92% of Anderson’s Canadian resource property…it is anticipated that the successor tax election [under s. 66.7(7)(e)] will allow New Anderson to also acquire the undeducted resource tax pools of Anderson, on a ‘successored’ basis… ."
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Anderson Energy Circular under Spin-Offs & Distributions – Taxable Spin-offs.
BCE proposed acquisition of GLENTEL does not include a de minimis cash consideration component
In the proposed BCE acquisition of GLENTEL for ½ of a BCE share or cash of $26.50, per GLENTEL share at the GLENTEL shareholder’s option (but with the overall consideration being fixed on essentially a 50-50 basis), a GLENTEL shareholder potentially could receive only share consideration, so that the s. 85.1 rollover would be available. This contrasts with other offerings (e.g., First Quantum/Lumina and Loblaw/Shoppers Drug Mart) where a minimum (and somewhat nominal) cash consideration was specified, so that all target shareholders wishing rollover treatment would be required to make a s. 85 election.
In addition to posting a "Tax Instruction Letter" on its website, BCE will provide the letter to a duly requesting shareholder by email.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of GLENTEL Circular under Mergers & Acquisitions – Mergers – Shares for Shares or Cash.