News of Note
CRA accepts that s. 74.4(2) imputed interest can be avoided following an estate freeze by using a stock dividend of preferred shares
Email this ContentCRA considers that where an individual holding all the common shares of Opco (which is not a small business corporation) accomplishes an estate freeze through exchanging his common shares of Opco for preferred shares, with a trust for his minor children then subscribing a nominal amount for common shares, s. 74.4(2) will apply to impute interest to him on his preferred shares.
On the other hand, if he has Opco pay a stock dividend to him of preferred shares (thereby shifting most of the value from the common shares to the preferreds, which have nominal paid-up capital so there is only a nominal income inclusion to him), with the trust then subscribing for common shares, CRA accepts (consistently with 2003-0004125 F) that s. 74.4(2) will not apply. The safe income on hand previously attributable to his common shares will be apportioned between his preferred shares and his remaining common shares based on a comparison of the accrued gain on the common shares before the stock dividend with the accrued gain on the preferred shares after the stock dividend.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 10 October 2014 APFF Roundtable, Q. 19, 2014-0538041C6 F under s. 74.4(2), s. 55(2), s. 15(1.1) and Reg. 6205(2)(a).
CRA finds that the avoidance of s. 100(1.5) through paying down partner debt rather than making a dilutive partnership distribution is subject to GAAR
The published CRA responses to questions at the 2014 Annual CTF Conference include a discussion of the GAAR Committee approach to a situation where (using a simplified example) a building with accrued recapture of depreciation of $50,000 is transferred by a Canadian corporation on a s. 97(2) rollover basis to a subsidiary partnership in exchange for a note equal to the building’s undepreciated capital cost and units for the balance of the consideration. As the building is used in a business which is carried on outside (rather than inside) Canada, s. 100(1) would have applied, on a sale of half the resident’s partnership interest to a non-resident purchaser, to produce a fully taxable gain (of $25,000) on that sale – thereby producing a result comparable to realization of the accrued recapture of depreciation on half of the building. What occurs instead is that the non-resident subscribes $50,000 for a half interest in the partnership with that cash used to pay off the note – so that no immediate gain is recognized. CRA indicated that it "will challenge such an arrangement by applying the GAAR," given that there is "a misuse or abuse… having regard to the 2012 amendments to subsection 100(1) that extend its application to acquisitions by non-residents and the addition of the anti-avoidance dilution provisions contained in new subsections 100(1.4) and (1.5)."
The CRA analysis appears to be informed by two, or perhaps three, alternative transactions:
- a sale of ½ of the resident’s partnership interest (along with half of the note) to the non-resident, which would give rise to a fully taxable gain of $25,000 under s. 100(1);
- the $50,000 cash subscription from the non-resident (applied as to $25,000 for partnership units and a partnership note, respectively) is used to make a capital distribution of $25,000 to the resident so that its partnership interest is reduced in value from $50,000 to $25,000 (with the other $25,000 used to pay off ½ of the resident's note), in which case s. 100(1.5) would apply to deem the resident to realize a fully taxable gain under s. 100(1) of $25,000; and
- a direct sale of a ½ interest in the building for $50,000, which would result in the resident’s UCC being reduced from $50,000 to nil (so that the UCC of $25,000 relating to the resident’s retained ½ interest would be eliminated).
The first (and a fortiori the third) transaction appear to not have a lot of GAAR traction since (leaving aside whatever one might make of Stursberg) there appears to be a fundamental distinction between sales and subscriptions, and "where it can be shown that an anti-avoidance provision has been carefully crafted to include some situations and exclude others, it is reasonable to infer that Parliament chose to limit their scope accordingly" (Landrus – see also Inter-Leasing).
The second comparative transaction is more interesting. Immediately receivable partnership distributions following a s. 97(2) roll have been characterized as boot, i.e., as an obligation (see Haro, Vantem, MDS). If a right to an almost immediate capital distribution is effectively characterized in some contexts as cognate with partner debt (assuming that the partner debt is not recharacterized as equity under general principles – see Skingle), can this somehow be turned on its head so that a repayment of partnership debt should be characterized for purposes of applying the policy of s. 100(1.5) for GAAR purposes as if it were an obligation to make a dilutive capital distribution?
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2 December 2014 CTF Roundtable, Q. 6 under s. 100(1).
A related group can consist of corporations whose respective controlling shareholders are not all related to each other
A is related to his wife’s brother (B), and B is related to his wife’s parent (C), but A is unrelated to C. If A, B and C each holds 1/3 of the shares of Dco through his respective holdco (Aco, Bco or Cco), each of Aco, Bco and Cco will be considered to be related to Dco (given inter alia that Aco and Cco is each related to Bco and they thus are deemed to be related to each other), and Dco will also be considered to be related to a subsidiary of Aco.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of October 2014 APFF Roundtable, Q. 17, 2014-0538071C6 F under s. 251(3).
CRA applies the connected corporation tests on the basis of numbers of voting shares
CRA has confirmed that for purposes of the connected corporation tests, having 10% or 50% of the "issued share capital" of a corporation with full voting rights means owning voting shares whose relative number exceeds the percentage threshold – so that (leaving GAAR aside) a CCPC would be "controlled" by a Holdco if for example the Holdco held 100 shares of CCPC with 1 vote per share and an arm’s length shareholder held one share bearing 1000 votes.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of October 2014 APFF Roundtable, Q. 18, 2014-0538081C6 F under s. 186(2).
Black – Federal Court of Appeal affirms a finding that Treaty residence in the U.K. did not stop CRA from treating Conrad Black as a Canadian resident
In 2002, Conrad Black was resident in Canada under general principles but was resident in the U.K for Treaty purposes under the tie-breaker rules. He made an unsuccessful argument before Rip CJ to the effect that s. 250(5) (which was not yet applicable to him) was enacted for greater certainty, so that (it was argued) he was deemed because of his Treaty status not to be resident in Canada. Accordingly, Conrad Black was subject to Canadian tax on his world-wide income.
If he instead had been successful on this argument, he would have faced a further difficulty in Art. 27, para. 2 of the Treaty, which provided that income, which otherwise was "relieved" from Canadian income tax under the Treaty but was subject to tax in the U.K. only on a remittance basis, would only be subject to such relief to the extent it was so remitted. Rip CJ found that this provision was not restricted to income which arose in Canada, so that it would have permitted Canada to tax Black’s U.S.-source employment income (which had not been remitted to the U.K.)
This decision has been briefly affirmed, including the Art. 27 findings.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Black v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1046 [at 2882], 2014 TCC 12, briefly aff’d 2014 FCA 275, under Treaties – Art. 4, Art. 29, Stat. Interp. – Other/Conflicting Statutes, and Interp. Act - 45(2).
CRA synthesizes expanded positions on amalgamations
There are various additions in the new Folio on amalgamations as compared to IT-474R2 (many of them, reflective of intervening technical interpretations and rulings) including:
- CRA accepts Envision for the proposition that under the applicable corporate law, the property of predecessors necessarily becomes property of Amalco (thereby satisfying s. 87(1)(a));
- an acquisition of control of the target corporation and its subsequent amalgamation on the same day will give rise to two years ends rather than one if there are transactions described in the closing agenda which must logically occur in between;
- there also will be two year ends if the acquisition of control occurs by means of a horizontal amalgamation;
- CRA generally will accept a late s. 88(1)(d) bump designation by Amalco provided that the bump is applied on a proportional basis;
- the s. 87(7)(d) debt continuity rule assures that the recognition of an FX gain on debt under s. 111(12) and s. 111(4)(e) will be remembered when Amalco later settles the debt;
- CRA likes Copthorne; and
- a deemed debt settlement occurring under s. 80.01(3) will not result in FX gain.
Some of the dubious assertions in IT-474R2 (e.g., Amalco is generally stuck with the inventory valuation methods followed by its predecessor, and CRA will only "accept" that there is a good s. 87 amalgamation if Amalco pretends that there is a s. 13(5.1) continuity rule) or accommodations (e.g., the $200 fractional share cash policy, or the continuity of ACB on pref-for-pref exchanges) have been retained.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of S4-F7-C1: Amalgamations of Canadian Corporations under s. 87(1), 87(2)(a), s. 88(1)(d), s. 87(3) and s. 80.01(3).
Income Tax Severed Letters 10 December 2014
This morning's release of 17 severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA provides written CTF Roundtable Responses including on LOB and base erosion
CRA has provided its written responses to the technical questions posed at last week’s Annual CTF Conference Roundtable, including its responses to two questions for which there was insufficient or no time:
- Q.7 CRA has yet to turn down a ruling request respecting the rule in XXIX-A3 of the Canada-U.S. Treaty, which permits a U.S. resident who is not a qualifying person to enjoy Treaty benefits on income derived from Canada that is connected or incidental to a U.S. active business, on the basis that the U.S. business was not relatively "substantial." So far, the high water mark has been a U.S. business with 50% of the revenues and average fixed asset base, and 10% of the employees, of the relevant Canadian business. (In a staccato oral comment, Randy Hewlett stated that more than a "lemonade stand" was required.)
- Q. 8 In 2013-0474431E5, CRA indicated that if Canco seconds employees to its non-resident subsidiary (FA) for use in FA’s services business with arm’s length customers there, CRA will not impute foreign accrual property income to Canco under s. 95(2)(b)(ii) if the employees are provided to FA at cost rather than at, say, a 25% mark-up. CRA has now clarified that a mark-up over direct salaries will not result in FAPI if there is no profit element, i.e., the mark-up covers other costs – and that whether more than that level of markup would result in an offsetting deduction in computing the FAPI of FA "depends on the proper determination of the related profit to be attributed to the activities of the relevant personnel."
Neal Armstrong. 2014 CTF Conference Roundtable.
CRA accommodates notional elections on notional s. 90(9) dividends, and application of rule against double taxation to multiple s. 90(6) inclusions
Various elections potentially are available to Canco when it receives a dividend from its foreign affiliate (FA1). But what if it is receiving a notional dividend from FA1 as a result of the receipt of an upstream loan from FA1 (or perhaps from FA1’s subsidiary - FA2)? Can it then pretend that it has made notional elections?
CRA accepts that Canco can treat the disproportionate underlying foreign tax election under Reg. 5907(1), the Reg. 5901(2)(b) election to convert a dividend into a "pre-acq" dividend or the Reg. 5901(1.1) election to access taxable surplus and related UFT, as if they had applied to the notional dividend. However, the 90-day rule cannot be used (see also 2014-0526721C6) – nor can Canco access notional surplus that would have arisen to FA1 as a result of a s. 40(3) (negative ACB) gain which would have arisen to FA1 if the notional dividend in question had instead been paid as an actual dividend by FA2 to FA1 before being on-paid by FA1 to Canco (see also Buttenham).
CRA also accommodates avoidance of double taxation, e.g., where FA2 has been wound up into FA1 following having made a loan to Canco, thereby technically giving rise to a 2nd s. 90(6) inclusion (see also 2013-0499121E5), or there have been a series of upstream loans and repayments, thereby technically giving rise to multiple income inclusions to Canco given the denial of a s. 90(14) deduction to Canco for repayments as part of a series (see also 2013-0506551E5).
Within limits, CRA can be accommodating.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 30 October 2014 T.I. 2013-0488881E5 under s. 90(9).
Rogers – Tax Court of Canada implies that a capital gain can arise from a property which is not capital property
Mathieu found that stock option surrender proceeds were not a taxable s. 6(1)(a) benefit when received by a non-arm’s length employee prior to the introduction of s. 7(1)(b.1). Rogers also found that such a benefit is not "remuneration" under s. 5(1) – nor was it a shareholder benefit as Mr. Rogers surrendered his options to Rogers Communications Inc. for their fair market value.
Hogan J found obiter that the cash surrender proceeds received by Mr. Rogers were a capital gain. He indicated that under s. 39(1), a capital gain is "the taxpayer’s gain . . . from the disposition of any property" other than property specifically excluded under that provision (such as eligible capital properties and resource properties) except to the extent that the gain was already taxable under s. 3. Therefore, the disposed-of property need not be a capital property to give rise to a capital gain. However, the bit he left out in the above quote is that the gain is to be computed "under this subdivision" (i.e., the taxable capital gains subdivision), so that he did not address a plausible argument that the taxable capital gains subdivision applies only to "capital property" in its usual sense.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Rogers v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 348 under s. 7(3)(a), s. 39(1)(a), s. 15(1), s. 5(1) and s. 9 – capital gain v. profit – options.