The award is granted annually to three
tax practitioners with less than ten years of tax experience. The award is
given for the best newsletter article which appeared in any of the three
Canadian Tax Foundation newsletters in a calendar year and was written solely
by author(s) who were young practitioners at the time of publication.
This month, the British Columbia Health
Minister announced plans to introduce legislation that will increase the BC’s
provincial tax on vaping products from 7% to 20%. In doing so, BC will become
the first province to tax e-cigarettes and vaping.
In all other provinces, vaping
demonstrates an interesting inconsistency in some provincial legislation: under
some provincial public health legislation vaping is regulated like other
tobacco use yet under provincial tax legislation vaping is not treated like tobacco
and is only subject to either the provincial HST component or provincial sales
tax. Thus, vaping actually provides a much more tax-effective way for a user to
get a nicotine fix. Put otherwise, vaping is essentially subsidized nicotine
Vaping involves the use of a handheld
electronic device that heats an “e-liquid”—sometimes called
e-substance, e-oil, or e-juice—to a point where it becomes an inhalable vapour.
The e-liquid is typically composed of
nicotine, a carrier substance such as glycerine, and flavouring. E-cigarettes
and e-liquid are tobacco-free. Most Canadian provinces (Alberta and
Saskatchewan are exceptions) have public health legislation that regulates the
use of e-cigarettes in a manner that parallels the regulation of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.
For example, Ontario’s Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017 regulates the sale, advertisement, packaging, and consumption of e-cigarettes, in some ways reproducing restrictions on tobacco use.
In Canada, both federal and provincial
governments exercise jurisdiction over health. This dual jurisdiction explains
why there are two layers of tobacco legislation: the provincial laws noted
above and the federal Tobacco and Vaping
Products Act (SC 1997, c. 13), which governs public health aspects of
tobacco and vape consumption in Canada.
Although provincial public health legislation regulates e-cigarettes as it does tobacco cigarettes, provincial tax legislation does not. In all 10 provinces, tobacco sales are taxed under special tobacco tax legislation, and in most provinces tobacco sales are also subject to GST/HST. For example, in Ontario a pack of 20 cigarettes is subject to a tobacco tax of $3.30 and an additional 13 percent HST. However, vaping liquid, or e-liquid, does not come within the scope of tobacco tax legislation, which is limited to tobacco products. As a result without new legislation, vape products escape the additional taxed levied on tobacco products.
As explained above, e-cigarettes and
e-liquid are tobacco-free, and while the nicotine in e-liquid may give smokers
a sensation similar to that of a traditional cigarette, the nicotine is not a
tobacco product. As a result, while sales of e-cigarettes and e-liquid are
subject to GST/HST, they are not subject to a special tobacco tax.
This means that now as more Canadians have shifted from traditional smoking to vaping, they are escaping the financial burden of tobacco taxation. In turn, this means that provinces are losing their tobacco tax base. However, it is estimated that BC’s new legislation will generate roughly $10 million a year in new tax revenue. We won’t be surprised to see other provinces follow BC’s lead.
On August 8, 2019, the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) released an Income Tax Ruling, 2018-0776661I7, clarifying its view on the taxation of cryptocurrency miners.
The ruling responded to a taxpayer
inquiry, asking whether a bitcoin miner should include the value of mined
bitcoin in income at the time it is received.
Bitcoin miners have an essential role in
both the creation and the maintenance of the block-chain technology, which is
the foundation of bitcoin itself. When miners, using their computers, solve
computation-intensive math problems on the bitcoin network, they produce or
create new bitcoin. In addition, in solving the math problems, bitcoin miners
verify the network’s transaction information, securing the bitcoin payment
One might say that miners create bitcoin, in which case mining bitcoin would not be a taxable event. Some in the cryptocurrency sector have analogized bitcoin mining with mining for gold. However, in the ruling the CRA takes the position that miners earn bitcoin, or receive bitcoin as consideration for their work in validating transactions on the block-chain, with the result that miners must include any bitcoin they mine in their income at the time it is received. In other words, the CRA ignores the
“creation” element of mining.
The CRA further advises that the value of
the bitcoin for tax purposes is determined by the barter rules, which in this
case would require that a miner bring into income the value of the mining
services rendered or the value of the bitcoin received. Since in most cases the
value of the bitcoin will be more readily valued, this is the amount to be
brought into income.
While many will find the CRA’s position
to be obvious given the miners play a key role in servicing the blockchain,
those who have relied on the gold mining analogy should note the tax consequences
of the CRA position. Another interesting issue is the extent to which “miners”
of other cryptocurrencies that may use other methods of creation, can rely on
this ruling. In either case, the additional clarity providing by the ruling is
useful to everyone working in the cryptocurrency space.
La récente décision de la Cour suprême du Canada
dans 1068754 Alberta Ltd. c. Québec (Agence du revenu) confirme le droit de Revenu Québec d’envoyer une
demande péremptoire à une institution située en dehors du Québec sans que cette
demande n’ait une portée extraterritoriale.
En 2014, Revenu Québec a envoyé une demande
péremptoire de renseignements et de documents en vertu de l’article 39 de la Loi sur l’administration fiscale
(Québec) à une succursale de la Banque Nationale du Canada située à Calgary.
Par cette demande, Revenu Québec cherchait à établir le lieu de résidence de la
fiducie DGGMC Bitton Trust (la « Fiducie »), qui tient un compte bancaire à cette succursale, et à
déterminer si elle devait payer de l’impôt au Québec. Revenu Québec a envoyé sa demande à la succursale de
Calgary plutôt qu’au Québec afin de se conformer à la Loi sur les banques (Canada), qui exige que certains documents
concernant des clients des banques soient envoyés à la succursale de tenue du
La Fiducie s’est opposée à la demande de Revenu
Québec jusqu’en Cour suprême du Canada pour le motif qu’elle outrepassait sa
compétence. Selon la Fiducie, la Loi sur
les banques (Canada) exige que la succursale d’une banque doit être traitée
comme une entité distincte de la banque considérée dans son ensemble. En
conséquence, elle prétend que Revenu Québec a outrepassé sa compétence en
envoyant sa demande à l’extérieur du Québec.
La Cour Suprême du Canada, sous la plume
du juge Rowe, a rejeté l’appel de la Fiducie.
Selon la Cour, la Loi sur les banques (Canada) contraignait Revenu Québec à envoyer
sa demande à la succursale de la Banque Nationale du Canada à Calgary. En se
soumettant à cette obligation, Revenu Québec n’a pas agi de façon
extraterritoriale. Le fait qu’une
mesure prise par Revenu Québec dans l’exercice de ses pouvoirs ait des
répercussions à l’extérieur du Québec ne rend pas automatiquement une telle
De l’avis de la Cour, le facteur déterminant en
cause était le lieu où l’exécution de la demande de Revenu Québec peut être
réclamée. La Banque Nationale du Canada exerce des activités au Québec, et les
exigences procédurales de la Loi sur les
banques ne devraient pas empêcher Revenu Québec de transmettre une demande
péremptoire à une personne faisant affaires sur son territoire.
Il est clair pour la Cour que la Banque Nationale du
Canada forme une seule et même entité qui ne devrait généralement pas être
distinguée de ses succursales. Les faits en cause ne justifiait pas que la
succursale de Calgary soit traitée comme une entité distincte afin que les
objectifs de la Loi sur les banques
(Canada) soit satisfaits. C’est à la Banque Nationale du Canada que Revenu
Québec a adressé sa demande, peu importe où la demande fut envoyée.
Il appert clairement du texte du jugement que la
décision de la Cour, favorable à Revenu Québec, accorde une grande importance
au fait que la Banque Nationale du Canada fait affaires au Québec. La Cour
n’ayant pas statué sur la situation inverse, il y a lieu de se demander si la
demande de Revenu Québec à la succursale de Calgary aurait eu une portée
extraterritoriale si aucune activité n’était exercée au Québec.
On June 21, 2019, one year after it was tabled in the House of Commons, Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, received Royal Assent and became law. By way of background, Canada had signed the Multilateral Instrument (the “MLI”) on June 7, 2017 and had then announced its intention to adopt the minimum standards proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (the “OECD”) under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, as well as mandatory arbitration for tax treaty disputes.
step for Canada is to notify the OECD through the deposit of its instrument of
ratification which is likely to be done before the end of the year. The MLI
will then enter into force for Canada on the first day of the month following
the expiration of a three-month period from the date of notice to the OECD. For
example, if the notice is sent in October 2019, the MLI will enter into force for
Canada on February 1, 2020.
provisions on withholding tax will then take effect between Canada and a treaty
partner where the MLI is already in force on the first day of the next calendar
year, i.e. January 1, 2021. For other
taxes, such as the capital gains tax on shares meeting the real property asset
valuation threshold (discussed below), the MLI will have effect for the taxable
periods beginning after a six month period (or a shorter period if the
contracting states notify the OECD that they intend to apply such a period), i.e. for the taxable periods beginning
August 1, 2020.
July 4, 2019, out of the 89 countries who signed the MLI, 29 have deposited
their instrument of ratification with the OECD, including Australia, Finland,
France, India, Ireland, Luxemburg, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.
As indicated, Bill C-82 confirms the adoption of the minimum standards, along with other measures for which Canada had initially registered a reservation, including the two following measures which are noteworthy.
1. MLI – Article 8, paragraph 1: Dividend Transfer Transactions
treaties signed by Canada call for a reduction in the domestic withholding tax
rate on dividends from 25% to 5% when the beneficial owner of the dividends is
a corporation subject to corporate tax in the contracting jurisdiction that
directly or indirectly holds at least 10% of the voting rights (and, in some cases,
of the capital) of the Canadian corporation paying the dividend. Fulfillment of
the 10% ownership test is determined when the dividend is paid.
By adopting the restriction described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the MLI, Canada agrees to apply the reduced withholding tax rate of 5% only if shares granting voting rights (and capital, where applicable) of at least 10% are owned throughout a 365-day period, including the day on which the dividend is paid. For the purpose of computing that period, no account shall be taken of changes of ownership that are a direct result of a corporate reorganisation, such as a merger or divisive reorganisation, of the corporation that holds the shares or the Canadian corporation that pays the dividend. This amendment will block surplus exit planning strategies where the shareholding of a Canadian corporation was modified within days prior to the payment of a dividend, which was generally easy to achieve from a Canadian tax perspective as the gain on the sale of the shares of a Canadian corporation is not taxable unless more than 50% of the value of the shares is derived directly or indirectly from real or immovable property, resource property or timber resource property situated in Canada.
2. MLI – Article 9, paragraph 1: Capital Gains from Alienation of Shares or Interests of Entities Deriving Their Value Principally from Immovable Property
domestic law stipulates a five-year test to determine taxation of a capital
gain from disposition of shares or other interests in entities whose value is
or was mainly (i.e. more than 50%)
derived from immovable property in Canada. Thus, if, at any time during this
60-month period ending on the date of disposition of the shares, more than 50%
of their value was derived directly or indirectly from an immovable property
located in Canada, the capital gain from the disposition is taxable in Canada.
In comparison, most tax treaties signed by Canada do not include a retroactive
test. In fact, the value test is generally applied at the time of disposition.
It was therefore possible, subject to the general anti-avoidance rule, to
proceed with an asset “stuffing” to decrease the relative value of the
immovable property in Canada below the 50% threshold before the sale.
paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the MLI, Canada is adopting a one-year retroactive
look back, i.e. Canada is reserving
the right to tax the capital gain if the 50% value threshold is exceeded at any
time during the 365 days preceding the disposition.