1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

McKesson: Respondent’s Factum Filed

Earlier this year, McKesson Canada Corporation appealed the decision of the Tax Court of Canada in McKesson Canada Corporation v. The Queen (2013 TCC 404) (see Federal Court of Appeal File Nos. A-48-14 and A-49-14).

At issue was the appropriate discount rate paid under a receivables sales agreement between McKesson Canada and its parent company, MIH, under section 247 of the Income Tax Act (Canada). A secondary issue was the assessment of withholding tax on a deemed dividend that arose as a result of the lower discount rate. For our earlier blog post on the Tax Court decision see here.

In the Federal Court of Appeal, the Appellant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law was filed on June 11, 2014. For our earlier post summarizing the appellant’s memorandum see here.

The Respondent’s Memorandum of Fact and Law was recently filed on August 11, 2014.

In its Memorandum, the Respondent states that the trial judge’s “carefully reasoned decision” and findings were “amply supported” by the evidence at trial and no palpable and overriding error can be found in the trial judge’s conclusions.

The Respondent summarizes its points at issue at paragraph 56 of its Memorandum:

  • The trial judge applied the correct test. His decision was based on what arm’s-length persons would agree to pay for the rights and benefits obtained and not on findings of tax avoidance, lack of need for funds, or group control.
  • Ample evidence supports the trial judge’s determination of the arm’s-length discount rate. Since no palpable and overriding error was committed, his decision should not be disturbed.
  • The trial judge did not commit an error of law in concluding that the five-year limitation period in Article 9(3) of the Canada-Luxembourg Tax Treaty does not apply to the Part XIII tax reassessment at issue.

No hearing date has yet been set for the hearing in the Federal Court of Appeal.

,

McKesson: Respondent’s Factum Filed

FCA Cautions Parties on Adjournment Requests

In recent years the Tax Court of Canada has strictly applied the requirements for adjournments and timetable amendments as described in the Court’s Practice Note No. 14. We understand this may have been prompted by a practice that had developed over time whereby the parties to an appeal would consent to extensions of time or adjournments and then informally seek the Court’s approval.

The Federal Court of Appeal appears to have been wrestling with similar scheduling and adjournment issues. In UHA Research Society v. Canada (2014 FCA 134), the Appellant sought an adjournment of a hearing date due to the unavailability of counsel.

In a lengthy discussion of the Court’s scheduling process, the Court’s expectations of counsel and the test for an adjournment request (i.e., there must be significant new developments, marked changes in circumstances, or compelling reasons of fairness), Justice Stratas provided a reminder about the Court’s procedure and practice regarding adjournments.

In UHA, Justice Stratas granted the adjournment request, but cautioned:

[18] Having written these reasons – reasons written in response to a spate of recent incidents of lack of regard for scheduling orders of this Court – I may well be less accommodating in a future case.

,

FCA Cautions Parties on Adjournment Requests

Spruce Credit: Avoidance Transactions and the Duke of Westminster

In Spruce Credit Union v. The Queen (2014 FCA 143) the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s interpretation and application of the inter-corporate dividend deduction under subsection 112(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”). The Court of Appeal also considered the interpretation of “avoidance transaction” for purposes of the general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”) in section 245 of the  Act.

Spruce Credit Union (“Spruce”) was a member of a network of credit unions providing financial services to individuals in British Columbia. Two separate provincially-owned entities were responsible for insuring the deposits of B.C. credit unions during the relevant period: the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (“CUDIC”) and the Stabilization Central Credit Union of British Columbia (“STAB”).

Certain regulatory changes required that funds held by STAB were to be transferred to CUDIC. After considering alternatives, it was decided that CUDIC would assess the member credit unions the amount in aggregate necessary to meet the fund requirement, and STAB would pay a dividend on its Class A shares to the credit unions, roughly equal to the assessment. In fact, two dividends were declared and paid: (a) “Dividend A”, from STAB’s “aggregate cumulative investment income”, and (b) Dividend B, from STAB’s “aggregate cumulative assessment income”.

The Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) reassessed Spruce, denying the inter-corporate dividend deduction (under subsection 112(1) of the Act) in respect of Dividend B (Dividend A was not reassessed). The CRA assessed Spruce on two grounds: (a) the dividend was not deductible under ordinary rules, but rather was governed by specific rules in the Act pertaining to credit unions, and (b) the GAAR applied.

The Tax Court (2012 TCC 357) held the deduction under subsection 112(1) was available to Spruce in respect of Dividend B. Further, there was no “avoidance transaction” and therefore the GAAR could not apply. (Note: The Tax Court’s costs award in Spruce Credit (2014 TCC 42) was not considered in the present case. That decision is the subject of a separate appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal (Court File No. A-96-14).)

On appeal, the Crown argued that the Tax Court erred because it was “inappropriate to consider whether the taxpayer chose the particular transaction among alternatives primarily based on tax considerations”. In the Crown’s view, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in MacKay v. The Queen (2008 FCA 105) required the Court to consider whether the non-tax objective could have been obtained without the particular impugned transaction or through an alternative transaction.

In the present appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal held the lower court had made no error in respect of its findings regarding the availability of the deduction under subsection 112(1). Further, the Court of Appeal rejected the Crown’s arguments regarding the GAAR.

The Court held that when determining whether a particular transaction is an avoidance transaction, the existence of an alternative transaction that may have attracted additional tax is only one factor to consider. The very existence of such alternative transaction is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether there has been an avoidance transaction. The fact that this alternative transaction exists is only one consideration in determining whether any transaction in a series in an avoidance transaction.

The Federal Court of Appeal noted that the Crown’s suggested interpretation would undermine the long-standing Duke of Westminster principle in Canadian tax law that taxpayers are free to organize their affairs in a manner to pay the least amount of tax within the bounds of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the validity of the Duke of Westminster principle in numerous GAAR decisions.

It is not entirely clear what distinction may be made between the facts and reasoning in the present case and those in MacKay. In Spruce Credit, there was a regulatory regime that required compliance and which necessitated the transfer of funds from STAB to CUDIC. The taxpayers chose a tax-efficient manner in which to achieve the regulatory compliance. In MacKay, the taxpayers choose a course of tax-efficient planning based on a voluntary acquisition of certain real property. That said, in neither case is this distinction particularly clear.

Perhaps future court decisions may provide some guidance on this point and on the interpretation of “avoidance transaction” generally. At the time of publication of this article, the Crown had not yet sought leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

A longer version of this article will appear in an upcoming edition of CCH’s Tax Topics.

, ,

Spruce Credit: Avoidance Transactions and the Duke of Westminster

CRA Rocks the Boat: Garber et al. v. The Queen

“Now then, Pooh,” said Christopher Robin, “where’s your boat?”
“I ought to say” explained Pooh as they walked down to the shore of the island “that it isn’t just an ordinary sort of boat. Sometimes it’s a Boat and sometimes it’s more of an Accident. It all depends”.
“Depends on what?”
“On whether I am on the top of it or underneath it”
A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

Readers who were tax practitioners in the mid-80s will well remember the luxury yacht tax shelters, which were sold in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and which were one of the most popular tax shelters of that period. Many of us had clients who invested in this tax shelter and are aware that the CRA was very upset with this tax shelter and reassessed all of the investors. Tax practitioners from that period will also remember that the promoter of the tax shelter and several of his associates were prosecuted and convicted in connection with the luxury yacht tax shelter.

Approximately thirty years later, Associate Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada released his decision in Garber et al. v. The Queen on January 7, 2014. The three appeals involved investors in limited partnerships which were established in 1984, 1985 and 1986 to acquire and charter luxury yachts and the deductions claimed by the Appellants in their 1984 to 1988 taxation years. The Appellants, as limited partners, claimed losses relating to the operation of the partnerships, interest deductions on promissory notes which were used to pay for the limited partnership units and professional fees paid in the year the Appellants subscribed for partnership units. The reasons for judgment note that 600 investors were reassessed and approximately 300 investors settled with the CRA.

The hearing opened on January 11, 2012 and in total over 62 days of evidence was given by 34 witnesses and there were 23 agreed statements of fact. The decision of Associate Chief Justice Rossiter is over 150 pages long and may rank as one of the longest Tax Court decisions (we previously commented on the length of the decision by Justice Boyle in McKesson Canada Corporation v. The Queen which was released in December 2013 – for those of you who keep track of such matters, this decision is fifty percent longer that the decision in McKesson.)

In basic terms, each of the Appellants invested in a limited partnership which was created to purchase a luxury yacht from the promoter. The promoter, as general partner, was committed to providing the yachts and to market and manage a luxury yacht chartering business for each limited partnership. The projections provided to the Appellants showed significant deductible start-up costs and the Appellants also expected to benefit from the tax depreciation (capital cost allowance) on the yachts. The Appellants’ investments were heavily leveraged with financing organized by the promoter and, therefore, a taxpayer who acquired a limited partnership unit would benefit from an attractive tax deduction in excess of his or her cash investment.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter carefully reviewed the background facts relating to the limited partnerships (almost 100 pages are devoted to recounting the evidence). He noted that the promoter of the tax shelter and several of his associates were convicted of fraud in connection with the arrangement and found that the scheme was a fraud because virtually no yachts were acquired and the money paid by investors was used to promote future partnerships and not used in a yacht chartering business.

The CRA had offered numerous reasons why the expenses claimed by the Appellants should be disallowed:

  1. The limited partnerships did not constitute an income source under sections 3 and 4 of the Act because there was no genuine yacht charter business. The limited partnerships were not true partnerships because no actual business was carried out in common.
  2. The transactions were “mere” shams.
  3. Limited partnerships never actually incurred expenses for the purpose of gaining or producing business or property income.
  4. In the alternative, under subsections 9(1) and 18(9) of the Act, certain expenses incurred were not deductible in the years claimed because services were to be rendered after the end of the taxation year.
  5. In respect of interest payments, the CRA alleged that the promissory notes did not constitute actual loans and that no money was lent or advanced to the investors and, therefore there was no interest deductibility.
  6. To the extent any yacht was acquired by the 1984 partnership, capital cost allowance was restricted by the leasing property rules in subsections 1100(15), (17) (17.2) and (17.3) of the Income Tax Regulations.
  7. In the alternative, if interest was deductible, it would be limited by the half year rule in subsection 1100(2) of the Income Tax Regulations.
  8. For partnerships marketed in 1986, the partnership losses are restricted by the “at–risk” rules introduced on February 26, 1986.
  9. Subsection 245(1) of the Act is applicable because the expenses and disbursements claimed by an Appellant would unduly or artificially reduce the taxpayer’s income.
  10. The expenses are not deductible under section 67 of the Act because they were not reasonable and were not incurred to earn income.

After his extensive review of the evidence, Associate Chief Justice Rossiter analysed the legal issues. He found that there was no source of income for purposes of the Act under section 9 because the transactions were a fraud (similar to Hammill v. Canada, a 2005 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal) and because the scheme was a fraud, there was no source of income. It was noted that it is possible to have a fraud and a business (several cases are cited in this regard); however, based on the facts, in this situation, there was no business whatsoever. Therefore, there was no source of income.

One of the arguments made by the Appellants is that the significant amount of money received from investors was spent by the promoter and this indicates that there was a business. However, the facts were clear that money was not spent on acquiring yachts or a yacht charter business. Some of the funds were spent on unrelated endeavours and most of the funds were spent by the promoter on marketing and promoting future limited partnerships.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter also noted that the Appellants commented during the trial on the “aggressive or inappropriate behaviour by members of the CRA”. He stated that his task “is not to assess the conduct of the CRA, but rather to determine whether or not the expenses claimed in these appeals are legitimate”. He also noted that the tax shelters were a Ponzi-like scheme which were set to collapse eventually and the conduct of the CRA did not turn the Ponzi-like scheme, which was a fraud from beginning to end, into a genuine business. In effect, all the CRA did was “lift the veil” to reveal the pervasive nature of the fraud.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter also made clear that because the investment by limited partners was heavily leveraged, there was a lack of capital and this was a significant indication that there was no business being carried on.

Accordingly, there was no genuine business and the Appellants did not have a source of income from which they could deduct expenses or losses.

Furthermore, there were no genuine partnerships. For a partnership to exist, the parties must be a) carrying on a business b) in common and c) with a view to profit. Here, there was no business carried on; merely a fraud perpetuated by the promoter. Business was not carried on “in common” despite the existence of a partnership agreement because the promoter was perpetrating a fraud even though the limited partners were ignorant of the fraud perpetrated on them. As to a “view to profit”, there was no “view to profit”; the promoter had the intention to profit at the expense of the limited partnerships and the activities were so underfunded and so limited that there was no intention to profit.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter went on to state that if there was a business carried on, the expenses claimed were not incurred for the purpose of operating the limited partnerships’ yacht chartering business and therefore were not deductible pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter also reviewed the requirement under subsection 18(9) of the Act that a taxpayer match any prepaid expense for services, interest, taxes, rent, royalty or insurance to the year in which those expenses relate. Based on the facts, the deductions claimed had little relation to actual expenses incurred and therefore deductibility is precluded under this provision.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter also stated that in respect of one yacht which the taxpayers argued had been acquired by one of the 1984 partnerships, no evidence was presented that ownership of the boat was acquired by the limited partnership and therefore capital cost allowance was not deductible pursuant to paragraph 1102(1)(c) of the Income Tax Regulations. In any event, a boat was never acquired for income gaining or earning purposes and was only used by the promoter as window dressing to perpetrate the fraud.

In respect of the interest expenses claimed, the test under sub-paragraph 20(1)(c)(ii) was not met, because there was never a legal obligation to pay interest. The taxpayers entered into promissory notes based on fraudulent misrepresentations and any contractual obligation to pay interest would have been vitiated by the fraud.

In addition, in respect of the 1986 partnerships, the “at-risk” rules applied. It had been argued by the Appellants that the partnerships were grandfathered under the legislation but the statutory test for grandfathering had not been met.

Finally, any expense would have been denied under section 67 of the Act as the expenses were not reasonable in the circumstances if one considers the entire scheme. The Appellants had offered no evidence to show that expenses were legitimate or reasonable in light of services rendered or if any services were rendered at all.

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter concluded by stating that because of the lack of a source of income, the non-existence of genuine limited partnerships, the fact that the expenses were not incurred for business purposes, as well as the alternative arguments he addressed in his decision, it was not necessary to deal with all of the CRA’s arguments (e.g. sham and section 245). Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Given the amounts involved, and the number of taxpayers who were awaiting these decisions, it is likely that this case will “sail” into the Federal Court of Appeal.

, , , , ,

CRA Rocks the Boat: Garber et al. v. The Queen

Out with the Old, In with the New: Clearwater Seafoods Holdings Trust v. The Queen

In the recent decision in Clearwater Seafoods Holdings Trust (2013 FCA 180), the Federal Court of Appeal considered the scope and purpose of Rule 29(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”).  When a trust ceases to exist during the course of a tax appeal, with tax liability shifting to a new person, may the new person continue the appeal?  The Court answered that question in the affirmative and unanimously held that this scenario falls within the language and intended purpose of Rule 29(1).

In 2011, Clearwater Seafoods Holdings Trust (the “Trust”) appealed an income tax assessment to the Tax Court of Canada.  In 2012, the Trust transferred all of its assets to Clearwater Seafoods Income Fund, which subsequently transferred the assets to Clearwater Seafoods Incorporated (the “Corporation”).  This transfer occurred in the context of the Trust “converting” to avoid application of the SIFT rules under the Income Tax Act.

At the Tax Court (2012 TCC 186), both parties accepted that the Trust had been terminated as a result of the disposition of all its property; however, this did not automatically bring the income tax appeal to an end.  The issue in Clearwater was whether the tax appeal could be continued with the Corporation as appellant in place of the Trust.  To obtain an order permitting the Corporation to assume the position of appellant going forward, a motion was brought by the Trust pursuant to section 29 of the Rules, which states,

29 (1) Where at any stage of a proceeding the interest or liability of a person who is a party to a proceeding in the Court is transferred or transmitted to another person by assignment, bankruptcy, death or other means, no other proceedings shall be instituted until the Registrar is notified of the transfer or transmission and the particulars of it. [emphasis added]

Once notice has been given to the Registrar, Rule 29 provides that the Chief Justice or a judge designated by him may direct the continuation of the proceeding.  At the Tax Court, the taxpayer brought a motion arguing that the Corporation is the appropriate party to continue the tax appeal as it now owned the property and would be liable if the appeal is unsuccessful.  The Crown argued that the tax appeal should be dismissed for want of an appellant.  The Tax Court held that the matter were not within the scope of Rule 29(1) and the motion was dismissed.  The order was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the lower court had construed Rule 29(1) too narrowly.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Court of Appeal addressed the rule’s underlying rationale.  The Court found that the purpose of Rule 29(1) is to deal with instances in which the circumstances of a litigant have changed and special accommodations are required in order to continue the proceeding.  Such changes may include bankruptcy, incapacity due to illness or injury, death of a litigant or the dissolution of a litigant that is a corporation.  The Court also considered such changes to include circumstances where a litigant that is a trust is terminated as a result of the disposition of all of its property.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the transfer of the property to the Corporation, in effect, placed tax liability on the Corporation and the trustees in the event of an unsuccessful tax appeal.  The termination of the existence of the Trust was found to be within the meaning of “other means” in Rule 29(1).  Consequently, it was held that there was a transmission of liability from the Trust to “another person” by “other means”. The Court held that this scenario falls within the language and purpose of Rule 29(1).  As a result, the appeal was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Tax Court to be reconsidered with a view to directing the continuation of the proceedings.

The decision in Clearwater highlights the Court’s willingness to interpret Rule 29(1) in a broad manner.  It also raises the question of what constitutes “other means” for the purposes of Rule 29.  As a result, it is important for any taxpayer, or party which may acquire tax liability, to consider the implications of Clearwater prior to an income tax appeal.

Out with the Old, In with the New: Clearwater Seafoods Holdings Trust v. The Queen

Too Much Wiggle Room in Wigglesworth? Advisor penalties under Income Tax Act not criminal offences in nature and don’t engage protections under s. 11 of the Charter, says Federal Court of Appeal in Guindon

*This is the first guest post written for the blog. We are honoured to have one of Canada’s leading criminal defence counsel, Brian Heller of Heller Rubel, as the author (with the valued assistance of Graham Jenner).

On June 12, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in Canada v. Guindon (2013 FCA 153).

The court was tasked with examining the nature of advisor penalties, which are sanctions imposed under s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act on tax planners engaged in “culpable conduct”. At first instance, the Tax Court of Canada (2012 TCC 287) had set aside one such penalty assessed against Ms. Guindon, holding that s. 163.2 created an “offence” within the meaning of s. 11 of the Charter. Consequently, according to the Tax Court, persons assessed under the provision were entitled to s. 11 protections, which apply to persons “charged with an offence”, and include fundamental principles applicable to criminal prosecutions such as the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The key portion of s. 163.2 reads as follows, and it is easy to see how the Tax Court drew its particular interpretation:

(4) Every person who makes or furnishes, participates in the making of or causes another person to make or furnish a statement that the person knows, or would reasonably be expected to know but for circumstances amounting to culpable conduct, is a false statement that could be used by another person (in subsections (6) and (15) referred to as the “other person”) for a purpose of this Act is liable to a penalty in respect of the false statement.

The Federal Court of Appeal reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, first on the basis that Ms. Guindon had not followed the proper process in challenging s. 163.2, by failing to provide notice of a constitutional question, and so the Tax Court lacked the jurisdiction to make the order it did. However, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the merits of the issue in any event, and held that advisor penalty proceedings are not criminal in nature and do not impose “true penal consequences.”

The Federal Court of Appeal applied the test set down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Wigglesworth ([1987] 2 S.C.R. 541), which dictates that a provision will engage s. 11 Charter protections if (1) the matter is “by its very nature, intended to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity” rather than being “of an administrative nature instituted for the protection of the public in accordance with the policy of a statute”; or (2) the provision exposes persons to the possibility of a “true penal consequence” such as imprisonment or a fine meant to redress wrong done to society.

The Federal Court of Appeal viewed advisor penalties for the provision of false information as an aspect of the self-compliance that is fundamental to the administration of the tax system. The penalties were not to condemn morally blameworthy conduct, but to ensure that the tax system works properly by maintaining discipline and compliance. Section 163.2 is also, the court observed, distinguishable from the clear offence provisions in the Income Tax Act because it contains only fixed sanctions rather than a range of penalties that allow for the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing an offender.

The court also rejected Ms. Guindon’s argument that the sheer size of the penalty – in her case a fine of $564,747 – demonstrates the criminal nature of the sanctions, pointing to an array of cases in which very severe penalties were held to be administrative in nature. “Sometimes”, the court commented, “administrative penalties must be large in order to deter conduct detrimental to the administrative scheme and the policies furthered by it.”

If you have difficulty comprehending the distinctions that the Wigglesworth test draws between administrative and criminal provisions, you are not alone. The Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged that the line drawn by the test is “sometimes a fuzzy one”.

That is an understatement. At a time when substantial penalties can be leveled under provisions that appear to be aimed at protecting a public interest (such as the fair and proper administration of the tax system) by deterring culpable conduct, the Wigglesworth test is becoming increasingly difficult to apply. The difficulty is not limited to the sphere of tax law. Just one year ago, in Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission (2012 ONCA 208), the Court of Appeal for Ontario had to apply the test to administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) under the Ontario Securities Act, which carry a maximum fine of $1,000,000. The court held that the specific fines at issue in that case were administrative rather than penal, but held also that s. 11(d) of the Charter limited the authority of the Securities Commission to impose AMPs that did not transgress the barrier from administrative to criminal. In other words, presumably, an overly severe AMP could, in the context of another case, indicate that the Commission had overstepped its regulatory mandate by imposing a truly penal consequence.

Rowan, then, demonstrates the difficulty and unpredictability of determining, under Wigglesworth, whether a specific sanction is penal or administrative. Guindon presents a related, but distinct practical problem: there exist provisions, such as s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act, which can be described fairly as both intending to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity (a criminal purpose) and intending to protect the public in respect of a policy of a statute (an administrative purpose). While advisor penalties clearly contemplate the promotion of tax policy objectives, they are equally concerned with persons who, through intentional conduct or willful blindness furnish false statements that are contrary to an important public interest. There is real concern raised by this case that a court can easily, using the language of Wigglesworth, justify opposite results. At the cost of certainty and predictability – important principles when constitutional protections are at stake – there is just too much ‘wiggle room’.

The narrow implication of Guindon is that unless the Supreme Court of Canada is called upon and reverses the result, the CRA will not have to govern itself by traditional criminal law standards in assigning culpability and sanctions for advisors. This could well have a chilling effect on the tax planning community. Speaking more broadly however, because advisor penalties straddle the “fuzzy” line between criminal and administrative law, Guindon is an ideal case for the Supreme Court of Canada to confront the practical unworkabilities of the Wigglesworth test.

, ,

Too Much Wiggle Room in Wigglesworth? Advisor penalties under Income Tax Act not criminal offences in nature and don’t engage protections under s. 11 of the Charter, says Federal Court of Appeal in Guindon

Just as Intended: 1392644 Ontario Inc. et. al. v. The Queen

The role of intent in the determination of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor has taken on greater significance in the last decade or so.

The Federal Court of Appeal has considered the role of intent in the classification analysis in Wolf v. The Queen, Royal Winnipeg Ballet v. The Queen, City Water International Inc. v. M.N.R., Combined Insurance Co. of America v. M.N.R.National Capital Outaouais Ski Team v. M.N.R., Kilbride v. The Queen and TBT Personnel Services v. M.N.R. 

In Lang and Lang v. M.N.R., Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court of Canada reviewed the underlying principles and stated that (i) intent is a test that cannot be ignored but its weight is as yet undetermined, and (ii) trial judges who ignore intent stand a very good chance of being overruled by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In the June 6, 2013 issue of Tax Topics, I discuss the Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in 1392644 Ontario Inc. et. al. v. The Queen, where the Court clarifies (i) the role of intent and (ii) the manner in which the classification analysis should be undertaken.

Just as Intended: 1392644 Ontario Inc. et. al. v. The Queen

Federal Court of Appeal strikes out a pleading alleging that expenses are non-deductible in light of “egregious and repulsive” conduct by a taxpayer

In a ruling handed down May 6, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered that portions of a Crown pleading be struck out for suggesting that a deduction may be disallowed on the basis that the conduct of the taxpayer in incurring the expense was “egregious or repulsive”.  Sharlow J. A. wrote the reasons in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen, 2013 FCA 122 in which Evans J.A. and Stratas J.A. concurred.

By way of background, the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed CIBC to disallow the deduction of some $3 billion of expenses incurred between 2002 and 2006.  The expenses at issue were incurred to settle litigation in the United States arising from losses suffered due to the collapse of Enron Corporation.  In the U.S. litigation, it was alleged that CIBC participated in the financing of Enron in a manner that made it liable to the complainants.

The Income Tax Act provides the formula for determining a taxpayer’s income for the year for income tax purposes.  Under paragraph 3(a), one component of a taxpayer’s income is income from a business of the taxpayer.  Under subsection 9(1), a taxpayer’s income for a year from a business is the taxpayer’s profit for the year from that business.

The most important limitation on the scope of subsection 9(1) is paragraph 18(1)(a) which provides:

18. (1) In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business […] no deduction shall be made in respect of

(a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business […];

In 65302 British Columbia Limited v. The Queen, a 1999 decision in which the deduction of a fine was allowed (later to be specifically disallowed by Parliament), Iacobucci J. of the Supreme Court of Canada made the following observation:

It is conceivable that a breach [of the law] could be so egregious or repulsive that the fine subsequently imposed could not be justified as being incurred for the purpose of producing income.

In the contentious part of its pleading, the Crown relied on that obiter statement and offered the following theory of non-deductibility of expenses:

134. The misconduct of [CIBC and its affiliates] was so egregious and repulsive that any consequential settlement payments […] cannot be justified as being incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the [Income Tax] Act. The [CIBC affiliates] knowingly aided and abetted Enron to violate the United States’ federal securities laws and falsify its financial statements. The misconduct of [the CIBC affiliates] in enabling Enron to perpetrate its frauds, known to [CIBC], or the misconduct of [CIBC] itself, was so extreme, and the consequences so dire, that it could not be part of the business of a bank.

The Crown’s contention, in a nutshell, was that an expense incurred due to conduct of the taxpayer that was “egregious or repulsive”, is precluded from deduction by paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The CIBC asked the Tax Court of Canada to strike out that paragraph along with the other portions of the pleading reflecting the same theory.  The Tax Court chose not to do so.  The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and struck out the contentious paragraph along with the related parts.

In dismissing the Crown’s argument, the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized that “the only question to be asked in determining whether paragraph 18(1)(a) prohibits a particular deduction is this: Did the taxpayer incur the expense for the purpose of earning income?”  The Court concluded by stating that the characterization of the morality of a taxpayer’s conduct is not legally relevant to the application of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

Parties are generally given the opportunity to make whatever arguments they consider necessary to their case with the ultimate determination being made by the trial judge who is in the best position to decide questions of relevance and weight in light of all the evidence.  It is rather unusual for a legal theory, novel though it is, to be taken off the table at such an early stage.  At the same time, courts are increasingly concerned about “proportionality” and are reluctant to allow scarce judicial resources to be spent on matters that are unlikely to have any effect on the outcome of the hearing.  Whatever one’s view of the matter the Crown rarely seeks leave to appeal on procedural points, making it unlikely that this decision will be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Notwithstanding the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Crown will still be able to argue that the deductions taken by CIBC ought to be disallowed on a variety of other grounds including:

  • the deduction of the settlement payments does not accord with well accepted business principles;
  • the settlement payments were not made for the purpose of earning income from a business;
  • the settlement payments were outlays on account of capital;
  • the settlement payments were contingent liabilities when made; and
  • the amount of the settlement payments were not reasonable in the circumstances.

Although the taxpayer has prevailed in this battle, the war has just begun.

 *  *  *

This article was first published in the International Tax Review.

, , , , ,

Federal Court of Appeal strikes out a pleading alleging that expenses are non-deductible in light of “egregious and repulsive” conduct by a taxpayer

FCA provides guidance on role of intent in determining status of worker

The role of intent in the determination of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor has taken on greater significance in the last decade or so. However, despite a series of decisions on the issue from the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, there appeared to be some inconsistency in respect of how and when intent was to be considered when applying the “four-in-one” test from Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. The Queen ([1986] 3 F.C. 553) and 1671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. (2001 SCC 59).

In 1392644 Ontario Inc. (o/a Connor Homes) et al. v. The Queen (unreported; see court files 2010-948(CPP)I, 2010-949(CPP)I, 2010-950(EI)I, 2010-951(EI)I, 2011-237(EI)I, 2011-239(CPP)I, 2011-241(EI)I, 2011-242(CPP)I), the Tax Court held that several workers were employees of the appellant companies.

In the Federal Court of Appeal (2013 FCA 85), the taxpayers argued that the Tax Court judge had erred by (i) placing weight on the findings of fact made in other judgments involving the same appellants before the Tax Court, and (ii) not considering and misapplying the test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, particularly by not giving proper weight to the intention of the parties as expressed in their contracts.

On the first issue, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the lower court had noted that the facts in the present appeal were essentially the same as those considered previously in three separate appeals before three other judges of the Tax Court. However, in this case, the lower court judge had reviewed the parties’ evidence, weighed it, and reached his own conclusions based on it. Thus, there was no error committed by the lower court judge.

On the second issue – the role of intent – the Federal Court of Appeal noted the jurisprudential trend towards affording substantial weight to the stated intention of the parties (see, for example, Wolf v. The Queen (2002 FCA 96)Royal Winnipeg Ballet v. The Queen (2006 FCA 87)). However, the Court of Appeal noted, there was some difficulty in the application of the approach described in Wolf and Royal Winnipeg Ballet. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the parties’ may describe their relationship as they see fit, but the legal effect that results from the relationship is not to be determined at the sole subjective discretion of the parties. The Federal Court of Appeal stated:

[38] Consequently, Wolf and Royal Winnipeg Ballet set out a two-step process of inquiry that is used to assist in addressing the central question, as established in Sagaz and Wiebe Door, which is to determine whether the individual is performing or not the services as his own business on his own account.

[39] Under the first step, the subjective intent of each party to the relationship must be ascertained. This can be determined either by the written contractual relationship the parties have entered into or by the actual behavior of each party, such as invoices for services rendered, registration for GST purposes and income tax filings as an independent contractor.

[40] The second step is to ascertain whether an objective reality sustains the subjective intent of the parties. … the subjective intent of the parties cannot trump the reality of the relationship as ascertained through objective facts. In this second step, the parties’ intent as well as the terms of the contract may also be taken into account since they color the relationship. … the relevant factors must be considered “in the light of” the parties’ intent. However, that being stated, the second step is an analysis of the pertinent facts for the purposes of determining whether the test set out in Wiebe Door and Sagaz has been in fact met, i.e., whether the legal effect of the relationship the parties have established is one of independent contractor or of employer-employee.

The Court of Appeal noted that, in the present case, the lower court judge had proceeded in an inverse order (i.e., dealing with the parties’ intent at the end of his analysis). The Court of Appeal stated that the first step of the analysis should always be to determine the intent of the parties. However, despite the lower court’s inverse analysis, the judge had reached the correct conclusion regarding the status of the workers.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals.

This is helpful guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal on the manner and stage at which intent should be considered when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.

,

FCA provides guidance on role of intent in determining status of worker

Supreme Court dismisses leave application in Johnson v. The Queen

On March 21, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (with costs) the application for leave to appeal in the case of Donna M. Johnson v. Her Majesty The Queen.

The issue in Johnson was the tax treatment of receipts from a Ponzi scheme. The Tax Court (2011 TCC 540) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal and held that the receipts were not income from a source for the purpose of paragraph 3(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Federal Court of Appeal (2012 FCA 253) reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing the Crown’s appeal.

I commented on the decisions of the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal in the March 2013 Ontario Bar Association Tax Section newsletter.

,

Supreme Court dismisses leave application in Johnson v. The Queen