Category Archives: Analysis

The Unified Approach: Another COVID-19 Casualty?

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fault lines of the globalized economy and triggered a rise of protectionist trade policies.  The latest chapter in this trend away from a multilateralism is the U.S. withdrawal from OECD negotiations over the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy, which in turn has provoked European nations to retreat to unilateral solutions.

The Globalized Economy and COVID-19

In the period between the end of the Second World War and the on-set of the COVID-19 pandemic, the globalization of production created deep economic interdependencies, binding domestic economies to a global supply chain. Consequently, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke, the structure of global trade was such that a disruption in one link of the supply chain created effects all down the line.

In March 2020, the six nations hit hardest by COVID-19 were the U.S., China, Korea, Italy, Japan, and Germany.  At the time, these six nations accounted for 55 percent of world supply and demand, 60 percent of world manufacturing and 50 percent of world manufacturing exports.[1]  China, where the virus first emerged, was largest contributor to global trade, the “workshop of the world,” making up 41 percent of world manufacturing exports and 20 percent of global trade in manufacturing intermediate products.[2] Due to the globalization of production, when the pandemic decreased production in these six nations, and China in particular, the effects reverberated globally.

Continue Reading »facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

A new global taxing right: Report on the “Statement by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on the Two-Pillar Approach to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy”

In January 2020, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, a group of 137 countries including Canada, endorsed a statement, which affirmed their commitment to build a global solution to the tax challenges created by the digitalisation of the economy.  This work has been underway since 2015 and is slated to be finalized by the end of 2020.

The statement, itself a political expression of on-going commitment, was accompanied by additional documents which, provide an outline of the “architecture” of the currently agreed upon Unified Approach under Pillar One, a programme of work descriptions, details on the multinational enterprises (“MNEs”) that will be impacted by the initiatives under Pillar One, and a progress report on Pillar Two work (collectively the “January 2020 Statement”).  The biggest development presented in this set of documents is the architecture of the Pillar One solution, including a clarified explanation of a new taxing right for market jurisdictions.

Continue Reading »facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Implications of COVID-19 for Corporate Residency

Overview

The COVID-19 pandemic has created many changes for corporate management throughout Canada. In the past, directors often traveled outside of Canada for purposes of attending board meetings in foreign jurisdictions. Directors often made such travel arrangements in order to maintain a corporation’s residency outside of Canada for tax purposes. However, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly restricted directors’ abilities to travel abroad and, in turn, attend meetings in foreign jurisdictions.

Directors have, in response, created alternative local or “virtual” arrangements (i.e. video or teleconferencing) for such meetings. However, these arrangements may have potentially significant income tax consequences for a corporate taxpayer. This bulletin will briefly address some of these consequences:

General Principles of Residency

The Income Tax Act (Canada)[1] (the “ITA”) imposes tax on corporations resident in Canada. The Courts generally determine a corporation’s residency by applying the common law test of “central management and control”. The test provides that a corporation is resident in the country where its central management and control is exercised. This is generally the country where the directors of the corporation exercise their responsibilities.[2] It should also be noted that a corporation may be resident in one or more different countries (e.g. the directors may be exercising their responsibilities in multiple different countries).[3]

Continue Reading »facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

COVID-19: Administrative Accommodations by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) with respect to International Tax Matters

In light of the COVID-19 crisis and the travel restrictions implemented by Canada and many other jurisdictions as well as by businesses (the “Travel Restrictions”), the CRA has temporarily relaxed the way it administers certain rules and requirements contained in the Income Tax Act (Canada) (“ITA”) to account for the “forced” and involuntary presence of many non-residents in Canada for an extended period of time. As no one knows how long these Travel Restrictions will remain in effect, the guidelines described below, which apply from March 16, 2020 to June 29, 2020, may be extended by the CRA if necessary.

Deemed Residence: 183-Day Rule

For an individual, being subject to Canadian tax depends on his or her tax residence, which remains essentially a question of fact determined according to connecting factors established in common law. On the other hand, and subject to any applicable tax treaty, a non-resident who, in a calendar year, remains in Canada for more than 183 days is deemed to be a Canadian tax resident for the entire year and as such, becomes subject to Canadian tax on his worldwide source of income.

Continue Reading »facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Work From Home Tax Relief – $500 Non-Taxable Reimbursement for Personal Computer Equipment

On April 22, 2020, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) indicated that it would allow special favorable tax treatment to employees working from home during the COVID-19 crisis.[1]  

In particular, the CRA will accept that the reimbursement of an employee, for amounts spent on personal computer equipment to enable the employee to work from home, mainly benefits the employer. As a result, the reimbursed amount will not be a taxable benefit to the employee.  This relief is to apply for amounts up to $500 and only in respect of amounts for which the employee provides receipts.

In the normal course, an employer can provide an employee with an allowance for home office expenses, which is a taxable benefit for the employee.[2]    Alternatively, the employer can decide to reimburse an employee expense upon presentation of an invoice, in which case the reimbursement will be a taxable benefit if it primarily benefits the employee rather than the employer.[3]  Usually if an employee receives a reimbursement for home office equipment, it is characterized as a personal expense, primarily for the employee’s benefit, and therefore a taxable benefit.

The CRA’s announcement does not change the tax consequences for employers.  An employer providing an employee with reimbursements for home office expenses, even certain capital expenses such as the acquisition of tools, will normally be entitled to deduct the full amount of the reimbursements as a business expense, provided the amount is reasonable in the circumstances.[4]


[1]       CRA Views 2020-0845431C6: Taxable benefit – telework / Taxable benefit – Section 6 (1) a), 6 (1) b), April 22, 2020.

[2]       See CRA Interpretation, 2011-0402581I7 — Allowance for workspace in the home, July 12, 2011. See also, CRA, Interpretation Bulletin, IT-352R2 — Employee’s Expenses, Including Work Space in Home Expenses, August 26, 1994.

[3]       See CRA, Tech Interp, 1999-0013955 — Construction and expenses — workspace, February 3, 2000.

[4]       Ibid.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail