Category Archives: Canada

Analysis, Canada, Quebec

Modifications announced to the Act respecting duties on transfers of immovables

Duties on Transfers of Immovables in Québec: Implementation of Previously Announced Amendments

On November 16, 2016, the Minister, Carlos J. Leitão, tabled Bill 112 giving effect to several fiscal measures announced in the Budget Speech delivered on March 17, 2016.

Among the measures set out in Bill 112 are the modifications announced to the Act respecting duties on transfers of immovables (CQLR c. D-15.1) (the “Act”). Bill 112 must still go before a parliamentary commission before its adoption.

The measures announced in the Budget Speech revolve around the following three main changes:

  • Imposing mutation duties at the time of the transfer of an immovable, as opposed to the time of its registration in the land register – thereby imposing off-title transfers of an immovable;
  • Amending the conditions of certain exemptions from payment of mutation duties, in particular in respect of transfers between closely-related parties, and introducing a requirement that the exemption conditions underlying the exemption be maintained for a period of 24 months following an exempt transfer;
  • Introducing new conditions applicable to exemptions, specifically in respect of transfers between former de facto (common-law) spouses and transfers in favour of an international governmental organization that has entered into an agreement with the Government with respect to its establishment in Québec.

It is worthwhile noting that the measures will only apply to transfers of immovables occurring after March 17, 2016.

Bill 112, entitled An Act to give effect mainly to fiscal measures announced in the Budget Speech delivered on 17 March 2016, details the means by which these amendments will be implemented. One should note that Bill 112 will only come into force on the date of its passage by the National Assembly and its assent thereto by the Lieutenant-Governor.[1]

Continue reading »

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
Analysis, Canada, Français, Quebec

Modifications annoncées à la Loi concernant les droits sur les mutations immobilières

Droits sur les mutations immobilières : Mise en œuvre des modifications annoncées

Le ministre Carlos J. Leitão a déposé le 16 novembre 2016 le Projet de loi 112 mettant en œuvre certaines mesures fiscales annoncées lors du discours sur le budget du 17 mars 2016.

Parmi les mesures reflétés au Projet de loi 112, on retrouve les modifications annoncées à la Loi concernant les droits sur les mutations immobilières (CLRQ c. D-15.1) (la « Loi »).  Le Projet de loi 112 doit encore être examiné en commission parlementaire avant son adoption.

Ces modifications annoncées au discours du budget sont principalement de trois ordres :

  • Imposer le droit sur les mutations au moment du transfert d’un immeuble, et non au moment de son inscription au registre foncier – ayant pour effet d’imposer les transferts d’immeubles effectués hors titres;
  • Modifier certaines conditions d’exonération du droit sur les mutations, notamment entre parties étroitement liées, et d’insérer une exigence du maintien de la condition d’exonération pour une période de 24 mois suivant un transfert exonéré;
  • Introduire de nouvelles conditions d’exonération, notamment à l’égard des transferts effectués entre ex-conjoints de fait et de transferts effectués en faveur d’une organisation internationale gouvernementale qui a conclu une entente avec le gouvernement relativement à son établissement au Québec.

Fait à noter, les mesures ont effet à compter des transferts d’immeubles réalisés après le 17 mars 2016.

Le Projet de loi 112, intitulé Loi donnant suite principalement à des mesures fiscales annoncées à l’occasion du discours sur le budget du 17 mars 2016, vient détailler la mécanique par laquelle ces modifications seront mise en œuvre.  À noter que le Projet de loi 112 n’entrera en vigueur que suite à son adoption par l’Assemblée nationale et sa sanction par le Lieutenant-gouverneur.[1]

Continue reading »

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
Analysis, Canada

Tax Court: arrears interest after GAAR assessment accrue from the taxpayer’s balance-due day

Tax Court confirms that arrears interest on taxes resulting from GAAR assessment accrue from the taxpayer’s balance-due day

In Quinco Financial Inc. v. R. (2016 TCC 190), the Minister of National Revenue had assessed Quinco under section 245 (the “GAAR”) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (“ITA”) to deny certain claimed capital losses.  Arrears interest on the resulting tax due was also assessed, which the Minister computed from Quinco’s “balance-due day”.  The “balance-due day” is the deadline by which a taxpayer is required to pay to the Receiver General certain amounts payable under the ITA for a particular taxation year.  For a corporate taxpayer, it is either two or three months after the end of the particular taxation year, depending on the circumstances.

Quinco took the position that it should not be liable for arrears interest on the assessed tax debt for the period prior to the assessment date.  It proffered numerous arguments to support its position. The most interesting argument was that, although a GAAR assessment requires a determination of the tax consequences reasonably necessary to deny the tax benefit, it does not permit or extend to the recharacterization of the transaction for any other tax purposes; therefore, a taxpayer’s liability for interest does not arise until the date of the reassessment.

Justice Bocock rejected this argument and explained that an assessment under the GAAR,

“whether alone or in conjunction with another technical omission or non-compliant act, is not an assessment divorced from the other provisions of the Act.”

Here, the assessment was raised utilizing the GAAR, but the assessment “insinuated itself into Part I of the Act to reassess the taxpayer otherwise in the normal course.”  Justice Bocock held that subsection 161(1) arrears interest accrues on any tax payable determined under the GAAR from the balance-due day until the GAAR assessment issuance date (and onwards until payment of the tax payable).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
Alberta, Canada

Alberta Court rules on what is a “reasonable amount” of interest under s. 20(1)(c)

Street bank exchange rate display

Test for reasonableness of interest amount is whether no business would have contracted to pay that amount:  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

This summer saw the first case in which a court articulated the test for determining whether an interest amount is reasonable for purposes of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (“ITA”).  No other Canadian federal or provincial court has ruled on this question.

In ENMAX PSA Corp. v. Alberta (2016 ABQB 334), the two taxpayers were subsidiaries of ENMAX Corp., which was owned by the City of Calgary.  Government-owned businesses in Alberta are usually exempt from provincial and federal tax statutes, unlike privately-owned and publicly-traded corporations.  To even things out, government-owned businesses are required to make payments in lieu of tax (“PILOT”) to a “balancing pool”.  PILOT payments are calculated in accordance with tax statutes.  A taxpayer may deduct a “reasonable amount” of interest on borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income to the extent permitted under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The taxpayers in this case paid interest to ENMAX Corp. on funds borrowed from it and deducted the interest under paragraph 20(1)(c) in calculating their PILOT payments.  Alberta’s Minister of Finance took the position that the interest rates on the loans were unreasonable and only allowed deductions for amounts computed at about half of the actual interest rates.  The taxpayers appealed to the provincial court.

The issue before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was whether interest paid by each taxpayer was reasonable pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c).  The Court identified three broad considerations that govern the determination of what is reasonable:

  1. Reasonableness must be measured with reference to the legal transaction to which the borrower was a party, not other contracts it might have made.
  2. The interest that would have been paid in an arm’s length transaction may be a relevant factor, but it does not define what is reasonable.
  3. The standard of reasonableness does not require that a taxpayer’s deduction be ascertainable as a precise, correct amount. Rather, it allows for a range of amounts to be considered reasonable.

Justice Poelman concluded that the question to ask when determining whether the interest deducted by a taxpayer is a reasonable amount is:  Whether no business would have contracted to pay that amount, having only its business considerations in mind and under the form of transaction pursuant to which the obligation was incurred?  Also noteworthy are his statements that the reasonableness standard in paragraph 20(1)(c) is not an arm’s length standard and that an interest rate higher than an arm’s length rate may be reasonable in the circumstances.

After extensively canvassing the evidence tendered by fact and expert witnesses, Justice Poelman found that the interest deducted by the taxpayers (and hence the interest rates) were reasonable.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
Analysis, Canada, Ontario

[UPDATE] No need to delay rectification applications:  Ontario Superior Court

[The original post was published on July 25th, 2016 – This is an updated version.]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s recent decision in Slate Management Corporation v. Attorney General of Canada[1] indicates that applicants do not have to wait for the Supreme Court of Canada’s pending judgments in two high profile rectification cases before seeking rectification orders.  However, appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal concerning rectification matters will be held in abeyance until the Supreme Court renders the awaited decisions.

On May 19, 2016, the SCC heard arguments in Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada[2] and Attorney General of Canada v. Fairmont Hotels Inc., et al.[3] It is anticipated that the SCC will take the opportunity made available by these cases, the former being from Quebec and the latter being from Ontario, to provide national clarity and direction on the law of rectification.  The case law has been wildly inconsistent across the country since the Ontario Court of Appeal’s landmark decision in Juliar v. Canada (Attorney General)[4], the case that paved the way for rectification to be used to alter completed transactions in order to avoid unintended tax results.  Many in the tax community thought that there would be a moratorium on rectification applications and that those in progress would be held in abeyance until the SCC had spoken.

Addressing this issue directly, Justice Hainey in Slate Management did not accept the SCC’s pending decisions as justification for adjourning the application and proceeded to hear the matter.  He even went so far as to rely on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Fairmont[5], which is the exact case in which the SCC has reserved judgment.

The issue in Slate Management was straightforward.  The applicant argued that it had intended that its amalgamation of three corporations would achieve a specific tax outcome by using the “tax bump rules” under paragraph 88(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).  However, it failed to attain the sought after tax outcome because it undertook the amalgamation in one step instead of sequential amalgamations in two steps.  The question before the Court was whether the applicant had a continuing intention to achieve the tax outcome by using the tax bump rules.  The Court found that, on a balance of probabilities, there was a continuing intention.  The application was allowed and the applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed Justice Hainey’s decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal and immediately made a motion to have the matter held in abeyance until after the Supreme Court delivers the Fairmont and Jean Coutu judgments.  The Court of Appeal agreed and ordered that the appeal be held in abeyance until 30 days following the release of the Supreme Court decisions.[i]

[1] 2016 ONSC 4216 (Commercial List).

[2] Docket number 36505.  Summary of the case.

[3] Docket number 36606.  Summary of the case.

[4] [2001] 4 CTC 45 (Ont. C.A.).

[5] 2015 ONCA 441.

[i] Attorney General of Canada v. Slate Management Corporation (August 30, 2016), Toronto C62491 (Ont. CA).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail