Tax Topics

Table of Contents

See Also

Resource Capital Fund IV LP v Commissioner of Taxation, [2018] FCA 41 (Federal Court of Australia)

Two Caymans investment LPs (“RCF IV” and RCF V”) whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized gains on income account from the disposal of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held mining leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. Pagone J found that the U.S.-resident partners’ share of the partnership gains from selling the shares of Talison Lithium were not exempt under Art. 7 of the Australia-U.S. Convention because of the exclusion in Art. 13 (as expanded in Australian domestic legislation) for dispositions of (deemed) real property situated in Australia. In this regard, Art. VI defined real property to include “rights to exploit or to explore for natural resources,” and Art. 13(2)(b) provided:

  1. the term “real property”, in the case of Australia, shall have the meaning which it has under the laws in force from time to time in Australia and, without limiting the foregoing, includes:
  1. real property referred to in Article 6;
  2. shares or comparable interests in a company, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia… .

After first finding (at para. 81) that “real property” in Art. 13(2)(b)(ii) also had its extended Art. VI meaning notwithstanding the absence of a reference to Art. VI in that subparagraph. Pagone J went on to find that (based on Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597) that “consists of” language, such as that quoted above “was intended to assimilate as realty only one tier of companies rather than numerous tiers,” so that “the alienation by the partners of RCF IV and RCF V of the shares in Talison Minerals would not come within the terms of Article 13 consistently with the reasoning in Lamesa” (para. 83).

However, Lamesa was overruled by s. 3A(1) of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth), which extended the application of the Art. XIII exclusion to dispositions of shares of companies “the value of whose assets is wholly or principally attributable, whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed companies or other entities, to … real property or interests”. Thus the Art. XIII exclusion applied to the “disposal of real property indirectly by the partners of RCV IV and RCF V by their disposal of shares” (para. 85).

Other locations for this summary
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 13 exclusion in Art. 13 of Aust.-U.S. Treaty for real property dispositions extended to shares of Australian holding company holding mining leases through grandchild
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Capital Gain vs. Profit - Shares private equity fund LP with 5-year holding objective realized share gain on income account 167
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 115 - Subsection 115(1) - Paragraph 115(1)(a) - Subparagraph 115(1)(a)(ii) gains of a NR PE fund from disposals of Australian share investments that were managed in part in Australia were derived from Australia 411
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 3 each U.S.-resident partner of a Caymans PE LP carried on a U.S. “enterprise” 222
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Stare Decisis lower court not bound by a point of law that was assumed rather than examined by a higher court 272
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 152 - Subsection 152(1) assessment of partnership was assessment of partners 83
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 6 Art. 6 extends common law meaning of real property 180
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Taxable Canadian Property - Paragraph (d) shares of lithium mining and processing company were derived principally from the processing rather than mining operation and, thus, were not taxable Australian real property 500
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 218.3 - Subsection 218.3(1) - Canadian Property Mutual Fund Investment shares of Australian mining company were primarily attributable to the processing rather than mining operations 140
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Fair Market Value - Other processing assets of mining company were more valuable than its mining assets 234

Administrative Policy

8 July 2013 Internal T.I. 2012-0434991I7 F - Déductibilité d'une perte

As a sideline activity to the practice of his profession, Mr. A and his partners made loans, an activity which required little time in comparison to his profession. Respecting an interest-bearing loan previously made by them to Mr. B, Mr. A and his partners paid a creditor of Mr. B the amounts owed by Mr. B for a right by way of subrogation claim against real estate held by Mr. B. Mr. A and his partners held the real estate for a short period, before selling it at a gain. However, following a subsequent bankruptcy relating to these transactions, Mr. A and his partners were ordered to pay a dollar sum. In finding that s. 40(2)(g)(ii) likely did not apply to deny recognition by the taxpayer of a capital loss, the Drectorate stated:

According to the jurisprudence on cases involving guarantees, it is possible to return to the time when a guarantee was given by the taxpayer to determine whether a debt was acquired for the purpose of earning income. The reason why the guarantee was granted must be examined. In our view, the taxpayer's situation is comparable to a payment made as a result of a guarantee. …

In Mr. A's case, it is reasonable to assume that the assumption of responsibility for the mortgage debt obligations was intended to generate income by protecting his investment. In addition, the taxpayer had no personal objective, other than earning income, for participating in the repossession of the real property.

Other locations for this summary
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 40 - Subsection 40(2) - Paragraph 40(2)(g) - Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) per jurisprudence on guarantees, taxpayer’s reason for assuming an obligation (to protect an interest-bearing investment) must be examined
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(1) - Paragraph 20(1)(p) - Subparagraph 20(1)(p)(ii) ordinary business requirement looks to the presence of an organized and continuous system 243