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

McIntyre: Not What You Bargained For?

When are the parties to a civil tax dispute bound by agreed facts from a criminal proceeding?

This was the question considered by the Tax Court of Canada on a Rule 58 motion made by the taxpayers in McIntrye et al v. The Queen (2014 TCC 111). Specifically, the taxpayers argued the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and abuse of process applied to prevent the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) from assuming facts inconsistent with agreed facts from a prior criminal guilty plea.

In McIntyre, two individuals and their corporation were audited for the 2002 to 2007 tax years. The individuals and the corporation were charged with criminal income tax evasion. As part of a plea bargain, one individual and the corporation plead guilty based on certain agreed facts, and the court imposed sentences accordingly. The other individual was not convicted.

Subsequently, the Minister issued GST reassessments of the corporation, and further reassessments of the individuals for income tax. In issuing the reassessments, the Minister refused to be bound by the agreed facts from the criminal proceeding. In the Notices of Appeal in the Tax Court, the taxpayers argued the reassessments must be consistent with the agreed facts.

The taxpayers brought a motion under section 58 of the Tax Court Rules (General Procedure) for a determination of a question of law or mixed fact and law before the hearing of the appeals. Specifically, the taxpayers asked (i) whether the doctrines of issue estoppel, res judicata and abuse of process prevented the Minister from making assumptions inconsistent with the agreed facts, and (ii) whether the parties were bound by the agreed facts in respect of the calculation of certain capital gains, shareholder debts, losses and shareholder benefits.

The taxpayers argued that it was appropriate to deal with these issues before the hearing, whereas the Crown argued that these issues could not be determined on a Rule 58 motion because, in this case, the facts arose from a plea bargain rather than a determination by a court, the agreed facts did not address the GST liability of the corporation or the other individual’s income tax liability, and the facts (and tax liability) of a criminal proceeding would only prohibit the parties from alleging a lower tax liability in a civil proceeding.

The Tax Court dismissed the taxpayer’s motion. The Court considered the applicable test on a Rule 58 motion, namely that there must be a question of law or mixed fact and law, the question must be raised by a pleading, and the determination of the question must dispose of all or part of the proceeding (see HSBC Bank Canada v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 37).

The Court stated that, in this case, only the first two requirements were met:

[35] I agree with the Respondent’s analysis of the caselaw. It confirms that prior convictions in criminal proceedings resulting from plea bargains, although a factor that may go to weight in a civil tax proceeding, are not determinative of the relevant facts and issues in a subsequent tax appeal.

[38] In MacIver v The Queen, 2005 TCC 250, 2005 DTC 654, Justice Hershfield also concluded that a question is best left to the trial Judge where the motion is merely to estop a party from contesting certain facts that will not dismiss an entire appeal. As noted in his reasons, unless such a question can fully dispose of an appeal by finding that issue estoppel applies, a Rule 58 determination could do little more than split an appeal and tie the hands of the trial Judge.

The Court noted that the agreed facts did not address the corporate GST liability or the second individual’s income tax liability, dealt only with the 2004 to 2007 tax years, and did not address the imposition of gross negligence penalties. The Court concluded that issue estoppel would not apply because there was not a sufficient identity of issues between the criminal and civil proceedings. It would be unfair, the Tax Court stated, to prohibit the parties from adducing evidence in the civil tax appeals where there had been no introduction and weighing of evidence in the criminal proceeding.

McIntyre: Not What You Bargained For?

The Crown Succeeds on a Motion to Strike a Portion of the Taxpayer’s Pleading: Golini v. The Queen

In Paul C. Golini v. The Queen (2013 TCC 293) the Tax Court of Canada agreed to strike out portions of a taxpayer’s pleading suggesting that a protective reassessment issued by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) was invalid.

In June 2012, the CRA informed the taxpayer that his 2008 income tax return had been selected for an audit. In the following months, both parties continued to correspond and exchange information. In August 2012, the CRA asked the taxpayer to provide a waiver extending the limitation period to reassess the 2008 taxation year. The taxpayer declined to do so.

In September 2012, the Minister reassessed the taxpayer and informed him that the reassessment was a “protective reassessment;” supporting documentation would be provided upon completion of the audit.

The Crown brought a motion to strike out the allegation that the reassessment was invalid. The taxpayer contended that a “protective reassessment” was inconsistent with the assessing provisions of the Income Tax Act as it was issued solely to allow the Minister additional time to complete an audit.

The Tax Court judge looked to Karda v. HMQ (2006 FCA 238) for guidance on the issue. In that case, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Minister may issue a protective reassessment where a taxpayer declines to provide a waiver so long as the CRA has completed “some review” and has requested further information. The Tax Court judge held that:

There is no law . . . to the effect that a protective assessment is invalid if issued for the sole purpose of leaving the door open to conduct or continue an audit.

He went on to note that:

. . . the law, I find, is clear that some review by the CRA followed by inquiries for more information and a request for a waiver, subsequently refused, is sufficient for a protective assessment to be a valid assessment. And that is exactly what we have here.

Whenever a taxpayer declines to grant the CRA a waiver, the CRA almost invariably reassesses before the “normal reassessment period” expires.  There is nothing surprising about that.  What is noteworthy here, though, is the willingness of the Tax Court to entertain the Crown’s request to strike out, before trial, an argument put forward by a taxpayer. As we noted in our blog post on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen:

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.

This decision is, therefore, consistent with recent jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal and should reduce the number of issues to be decided at trial.

, ,

The Crown Succeeds on a Motion to Strike a Portion of the Taxpayer’s Pleading: Golini v. The Queen

Taxpayer entitled to disclosure of the “policy” underlying statutory provisions allegedly abused in GAAR cases

On December 20, 2012, the Tax Court ruled on a motion under Rule 52 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) to require the Minister to comply with a demand for particulars specifying how the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) was abused in a General Anti-Avoidance rule (“GAAR”) case.

In Birchcliff Energy Ltd. v The Queen (2012-10887(IT)G), the Minister alleged that the GAAR should apply because the series of transactions (the “Transactions”) undertaken by the taxpayer resulted in a misuse of 10 sections of the Act and an abuse of the Act as a whole. In response, the taxpayer sought an order requiring the Minister to disclose the policy behind each section of the Act that was allegedly abused and how the Transactions abused that policy.

The Tax Court held that the Minister must disclose the object, spirit, and purpose of the provisions of the Act (the “Policy”) that the assessor relied upon in making the assessment. The Minister does not need to disclose the actual Policy that will be argued at trial, or the way that the Policy was abused.

Arguments

The taxpayer argued that in making a GAAR assessment, the Minister must assume as a fact the Policy and an abuse of that Policy. Relying on Johnston v M.N.R. (1948 S.C.R. 486), the taxpayer argued that the Crown had a duty to disclose “precise findings of fact and rulings of law which have given rise to the controversy”. The taxpayer also argued that there was a heightened obligation on the Minister to be specific in cases of misconduct, negligence, or misrepresentation, relying on Chief Justice Bowman’s decision in Ver v Canada ([1995] T.C.J. No. 593). Misuse or abuse, it was argued, belonged in the category of offenses requiring more precise disclosure.

The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the Policy was a conclusion of law, not fact and that only allegations of fact must be disclosed in particulars. The Minister raised a “slippery slope” argument, suggesting that this ruling could require the Crown to explain its legal interpretation of all provisions of the Act in the future. Although the Minister acknowledged that Trustco v Canada (2005 SCC 54) placed the burden of identifying the Policy on the Crown, that burden did not apply to pleadings. The Minister also argued that disclosing the Policy would not help the Appellant because the Minister could still argue a different policy at trial.

Decision

The Tax Court highlighted the unique nature of GAAR, and stated that any disclosure requirements from this case would only apply to GAAR assessments. Justice Campbell Miller specifically pointed to the Crown’s burden to prove the Policy in GAAR cases as evidence of its unique requirements.

Justice Miller separated the elements of the Policy into two distinct categories:

1)      The actual Policy that would be argued and decided at trial (the “True Policy”), and

2)      The fact that the Crown relied on a particular Policy when determining that GAAR should be applied (the “Historical Policy”).

The Court held that the True Policy was a question of law that should ultimately be decided by the court. This policy was open to change throughout the course of litigation and did not need to be disclosed to the Appellant at this stage.

The Historical Policy, however, was held to be “a material fact, not an assumption, but the fact the Minister relied upon x or y policy underlying the legislative provisions at play in the case.” Taxpayers are entitled in pleadings to know the basis of the assessment. Disclosing the Historical Policy would be similar to disclosing the legislation upon which non-GAAR assessments are made. The Court distinguished the Historical Policy from the type of materials to which the taxpayer was denied access in Mastronardi v The Queen (2010 TCC 57), a recent Tax Court decision holding that the Minister did not need to disclose the extrinsic materials on which the Minister relied in determining the Policy. In Mastronardi, the materials sought to be disclosed were evidence that could be used to prove the policy, rather than the material fact of which policy was relied on (evidence itself is not a material fact).

The Historical Policy that must be disclosed is not the Policy of each identified section in isolation. The Minister must identify the collective policy of all of the identified provisions together that the Crown relied on in making the assessment. The Historical Policy should be disclosed under paragraph 49(1)(e) of the Rules as “any other material fact”.

With regards to the Appellant’s request for information on how the Policy was abused, the Court held that it was not required to be disclosed. Abuse is a conclusion of law to be determined by the court based on the Policy and the facts of the case. The Minister did not assume how the Policy was abused as a fact. The Minister concluded, based on the Policy and the facts assumed, that there was an abuse.

*  *  *

The Tax Court has reiterated that the taxpayer is entitled to know the basis of the assessment made against him.  Such an approach is consistent with principles of fundamental fairness and is entirely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Rules.

, , ,

Taxpayer entitled to disclosure of the “policy” underlying statutory provisions allegedly abused in GAAR cases

Tax Court of Canada upholds general policy that settlement agreements should be respected – taxpayer’s waiver of right to appeal was effective

In Noran West Developments Ltd. v. The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada (Justice Brent Paris) upheld the validity of a taxpayer’s waiver of its right to appeal executed following the conclusion of a settlement with the Appeals Division of the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”).  This conclusion was reached, and the Crown’s motion to quash granted, notwithstanding the taxpayer’s valiant attempts to set aside the agreement.

The relevant statutory provision in subsection 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act:

Waived issues

(2.2) Notwithstanding subsections 169(1) and 169(2), for greater certainty a taxpayer may not appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have an assessment under this Part vacated or varied in respect of an issue for which the right of objection or appeal has been waived in writing by the taxpayer.

By way of background, the CRA audited a corporate taxpayer (the Appellant) in respect of unreported income from a condominium joint venture which engaged in certain non-arm’s length dispositions.  The auditor reassessed to (a) include $640,000 in the taxpayer’s income for its 2005 taxation year (on the basis of a valuation of the relevant condominium units), (b) recognize a shareholder benefit to the taxpayer’s sole shareholder and (c) apply gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of both reassessments.

The taxpayer filed a notice of objection objecting to the inclusion of the $640,000 in its income (on the basis that the CRA’s valuation was wrong) and the assessment of a subsection 163(2) penalty.  The taxpayer’s sole shareholder filed no objection against his own reassessment.

Following discussions with the taxpayer’s representative, the Appeals Officer offered to settle the matter by (a) reducing the income inclusion by $50,000 (on the basis of a reduced valuation of the relevant condominium units) and (b) reducing the amount of the subsection 163(2) penalty accordingly.  The Appeals Officer sent a standard waiver letter which was signed by the taxpayer’s sole shareholder on behalf of the taxpayer.  It included the usual language in which the signatory attests that he or she is ”familiar with subsection 165(1.2) and 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act and understand that I will be precluded from filing an objection or an appeal with respect to those issues.”

The CRA reassessed to implement the settlement, but the taxpayer filed an appeal in Tax Court in response.  The Crown moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the taxpayer had waived its right to appeal under subsection 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act.  In answer to the motion counsel for the taxpayer advanced six arguments, none of which were successful:

1. The waiver agreement was not “in writing” as required by subsection 169(2.2) as the Appeals Officer omitted the taxpayer’s name.

The Tax Court judge concluded that “waived in writing” simply “requires that a waiver be reduced to writing as opposed to one given orally” and proceeded to find that the waiver agreement could not reasonably be read as applying to anyone other than the taxpayer.

2. The waiver agreement is unenforceable as the reassessment contemplated by that agreement would not have been consistent with the facts and the law.

The Tax Court judge found that there were errors in the first reassessment (the one that was settled).  However, the reassessment before the Court was the second reassessment (the one issued as a result of the waiver agreement).  As the second reassessment simply reduced the taxpayer’s income by $50,000 and reduced the subsection 163(2) penalty accordingly, there was no question that such a reassessment is within the CRA’s power.

3. The waiver agreement is invalid because the parties were not ad idem as to the terms of the agreement.  

First, it was said that the taxpayer’s sole shareholder believed that the waiver agreement applied to three taxpayers, not just one.  Therefore, there was no “meeting of the minds”.  Unfortunately for the taxpayer, the judge found that that belief, on the evidence, was “highly unlikely”.  In addition, an adverse inference was drawn from the failure of the taxpayer’s representative to give any evidence at all about what happened at the appeals stage.  The judge also rejected the contention that the sole shareholder believed that issue of beneficial ownership of the condominium units wasn’t covered by the waiver agreement and, therefore, there was no consensus ad idem.  There was no ”beneficial ownership” issue raised in the Notice of Objection, so there could be no reasonable expectation that it would have been reflected in the agreement.  The taxpayer’s final contention was that the sole shareholder did not believe that the waiver agreement dealt with the subsection 163(2) penalty.  As the text of the agreement dealt with the penalty, Justice Paris concluded that:

[61] . . . [i]f a party chooses not to read an agreement with care before signing it, or chooses to skip reading parts of it, I fail to see how he can turn around and allege that his intention did not accord with the written agreement. It must be presumed that, in those circumstances, the party intended to accept the agreement as written.

4. The agreement was vitiated by the CRA as it did not satisfy the terms of the waiver agreement because the subsection 163(2) penalty was incorrectly calculated on the second reassessment. 

Here is the error:

[24]  The respondent’s counsel concedes that an error was made in calculating the amount of the gross negligence penalty in the [second] reassessment and that the penalty was based on unreported income in the amount of $599,760 rather than on $589,760, as agreed. The respondent concedes that the penalty was too high by as much as $1,106. Because this error was only raised by Noran’s counsel shortly before the hearing of the motion, counsel for the respondent advised the Court that she was unable to obtain the exact amount of the error.

The Tax Court judge found himself unable to agree with the proposition that:

[65] . . . any inconsistency between the reassessment and the waiver agreement allows a taxpayer to appeal any aspect of the reassessment as if no waiver had been given.  It does not make sense that any error in reassessing, however minor, could permit a taxpayer to repudiate the waiver entirely.

5. The Tax Court should decline to enforce the waiver agreement on the basis that it is unconscionable. 

This argument was not pressed strongly.  In any event, the judge could find no evidence to support it.

6. The taxpayer is appealing issues other than those dealt with in the waiver agreement. 

This argument was based on the sole shareholder’s belief about what was covered by the agreement (which was rather narrow) rather than the text of the agreement itself.  Justice Paris rejected reliance on subjective belief and concluded that a “reasonable person” standard must be applied:

[74]  When searching for the intentions of the parties, I believe that the search for intention in the case of a waiver is to be conducted in the same manner as for any contract on the basis of the parties’ manifested intention. That intention is determined from the perspective of the objective reasonable bystander. Fridman in the Law of Contract in Canada, refers to the classical formulation of this notion in Smith v. Hughes:

If whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party and that other party upon that belief enters into a contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms.

*  *  *

Underlying this decision is a clear public policy that negotiated settlements, as a general matter, ought to be upheld:

[45] . . . The desirability of upholding negotiated settlements was discussed by Bowie J. in 1390758 Ontario Corp v. The Queen:

[35] I agree with Bowman C.J. and the authors Hogg, Magee and Li that there are sound policy reasons to uphold negotiated settlements of tax disputes freely arrived at between taxpayers and the Minister’s representatives. The addition of subsection 169(3) to the Act in 1994 is recognition by Parliament of that. It is not for the Courts to purport to review the propriety of such settlements. That task properly belongs to the Auditor General.

[36] The reality is that tax disputes are settled every day in this country. If they were not, and every difference had to be litigated to judgment, unmanageable backlogs would quickly accumulate and the system would break down.

[37] The Crown settles tort and contract claims brought by and against it on a regular basis. There is no reason why it should not settle tax disputes as well. Both sides of a dispute are entitled to know that if they invest the time and effort required to negotiate a settlement, then their agreement will bind both parties.

Although the taxpayer was unsuccessful, this decision is ultimately reassuring as the same principle applies to the government - if the CRA attempts to resile from a settlement agreement it too will be confronted by the same underlying public policy, namely, that negotiated settlements of tax disputes should be respected.

, , , ,

Tax Court of Canada upholds general policy that settlement agreements should be respected – taxpayer’s waiver of right to appeal was effective

Federal Court decides that JP Morgan’s judicial review application challenging the Minister’s decision to assess Part XIII tax may proceed

In a decision released on November 26, 2012 in JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue and Canada Revenue Agency (Docket T-1278-11), Justice Leonard Mandamin of the Federal Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal of an order by Prothonotary Aalto in JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue and Canada Revenue Agency in which the Crown moved unsuccessfully to strike out a judicial review application on the basis that the taxpayer had no possibility of success in seeking to set aside the decision of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) to assess Part XIII tax in a manner contrary to the Minister’s own policy.

This decision is the latest in a series of defeats for the Crown on this issue.  Since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. Addison & Leyen Ltd., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 793, there has been a vigorous debate around the limits of judicial review of Ministerial action involving the decision to issue an assessment and the scope of section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act which reads as follows:

Despite sections 18 and 18.1, if an Act of Parliament expressly provides for an appeal to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board from a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that Act.

The Minister has consistently intepreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Addison & Leyen and section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act as precluding judicial review of the Minister’s decision to issue an assessment.  Thus far, however, the Crown has been largely unsuccessful in striking out such judicial review applications in Federal Court.  See, for example, the decision of Prothonotary Aalto in Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Canada and the decision of Justice Hughes on appeal in Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Canada.

By way of background, the Minister assessed Part XIII tax against JP Morgan in respect of fees it had paid to non-resident affiliates between 2002 and 2008.  JP Morgan applied for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to assess it for amounts payable under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act.  In particular, JP Morgan alleged that in exercising discretion to assess for years other than the current year and the two immediately preceding years

. . . CRA did not consider, or sufficiently consider, CRA’s own policies, guidelines, bulletins, internal communiqués and practices which would otherwise have limited assessments to the current tax year and the two (2) immediately preceding years.  CRA thus acted arbitrarily, unfairly, contrary to the rules of natural justice and in a manner inconsistent with CRA’s treatment of other tax payers.

The Crown moved to strike the application for judicial review, relying on section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act.  Citing his earlier decision in Chrysler Canada, the Prothonotary dismissed the Crown’s motion.  He held that JP Morgan’s judicial review application dealt with:

. . . the discretion to assess as described in various policies of CRA.  That decision to apparently depart from policies and assess is subject to judicial review and is the type of situation that is contemplated by Addison & Leyen.  The ITA provides that the Minister “may” assess not “shall” assess which connotes a discretionary decision.  The decision of the Minister to apparently depart from policies is not otherwise reviewable [by the Tax Court of Canada] and therefore is subject to judicial review.

Consistent with his earlier decision in Chrysler Canada, the Prothonotary held that “JP Morgan only seeks judicial review of the decision to reassess which is alleged to be contrary to policies of CRA which were in place.  No attack on the reassessments is in play.” In his view, the case was about the Minister’s discretion to assess, not the assessments themselves.

Justice Mandamin dismissed the Crown’s appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision as he did not find that the Prothonotary’s Order was clearly wrong in that the exercise of discretion was based upon a wrong principle or a misapprehension of the facts and there was no improper exercise of discretion on a question vital to the case arising with the Prothonotary’s dismissal of the Crown’s motion to strike.

It is not yet known whether the Crown will appeal the decision of Justice Mandamin in JP Morgan, but it would not be surprising in light of the fact that several Crown motions to strike such judicial review applications are currently before the Federal Court.

, , , ,

Federal Court decides that JP Morgan’s judicial review application challenging the Minister’s decision to assess Part XIII tax may proceed

Federal Court of Appeal affirms that Tax Court settlements must be made on a “principled basis”

On January 10, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) released its decision in CIBC World Markets Inc. v. The Queen (2012 FCA 3) on a motion by the taxpayer seeking an order for enhanced costs.  In a unanimous judgment, Justices Sharlow, Layden-Stevenson, and Stratas dismissed the taxpayer’s motion, holding that there was no legal basis upon which the Minister of National Revenue could have accepted the offer of the taxpayer to settle the claim.

The underlying litigation dealt with a claim for input tax credits (“ITC”s) under the Excise Tax Act.  Specifically, the issue was whether the taxpayer was entitled to file a second claim for input tax credits in respect of the same year (further details are available in our earlier posts on the litigation).  Litigation commenced, with the result that the taxpayer was unsuccessful at the Tax Court of Canada (2010 TCC 460) but was successful at the Federal Court of Appeal (2011 FCA 270).

At issue on the motion before the FCA was an offer of settlement made by the taxpayer before the commencement of proceedings at the Tax Court of Canada.  The offer put forward by the taxpayer would have had the Minister issue a reassessment granting 90% of the ITCs at issue.  It had no expiry date and was left open for acceptance throughout the remainder of the action.  In its motion, the taxpayer argued that because it was entirely successful at the FCA, it should be entitled to 80% of solicitor and client costs, beginning from the date of offer and ending on the judgment by the FCA (80% being the “substantial indemnity” set out in Practice Note No. 18 of the Tax Court of Canada).

The FCA first dispensed with the taxpayer’s claim for enhanced costs in respect of the FCA action, noting that an offer of settlement made before trial must be reasserted after the trial decision if the offeror intends it to be effective in respect of the FCA proceeding as well.  As the taxpayer did not do so in this case, the only matter at issue were costs between the time of offer and the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada.

In dealing with that portion of the motion, the FCA noted that the rules governing offers of settlement include an implicit and important pre-condition that the offer made must actually have been capable of acceptance to trigger cost consequences.  In this case, the Minister asserted that the offer to settle (by permitting 90% of the ITCs initially claimed) was an arbitrary compromise on quantum, and was not legally supportable under the legislation – neither the Tax Court of Canada nor the FCA could have ordered such a result.  This kind of issue was described by the Minister as a “yes-no” issue of statutory interpretation where the taxpayer’s position was either entirely correct, or would be wholly rejected.

The FCA agreed with the Minister, relying on Galway v. Minister of National Revenue, [1974] 1 FC 600 and subsequent decisions under the Income Tax Act.  Those decisions reflect the requirement that all settlements must be made on a “principled basis”: the Minister can only accept a settlement that is consistent with the legislation and the result that the legislation would allow.  Compromise decisions and risk mitigation are impermissible if not otherwise supported by the legislation.  The FCA confirmed that this rule applies equally to the Excise Tax Act, and that “there is no legislative provision that repeals Galway”.

The taxpayer argued that compromise settlements would help to relieve the backlog of appeals at the Tax Court of Canada and should therefore be permitted as good policy.  The Court was not persuaded by this argument, suggesting that there are many policy considerations, in favour and against compromise settlements, and that it was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary, to decide.

This decision affirms that Galway remains the governing law with respect to settlements, and that a “principled basis” remains a requirement for all settlements, unless Parliament takes action to change the present state of the law.  Suggestion have been offered by commentators as to what such legislative reform might look like.  For one analysis, based on a multi-jurisdictional perspective, see Carman R. McNary, Paul Lynch, and Anne-Marie Lévesque, “Tax Dispute Resolution: Is there a Better Way?,” Report of Proceedings of Sixty-Second Tax Conference, 2010 Tax Conference (Toronto:  Canadian Tax Foundation, 2011), 14:1-15.

, , , , , ,

Federal Court of Appeal affirms that Tax Court settlements must be made on a “principled basis”

Tax Court of Canada confirms that pleadings will be struck out only in the “clearest of cases”

On December 19, 2011, the Tax Court dismissed a motion by General Electric Canada Company and GE Capital Canada Funding Company (the “Appellants”) in their current appeals (2010-3493(IT)G and 2010-3494(IT)G). The Appellants sought to strike several paragraphs from the Replies filed by the Crown on the basis that the Crown was relitigating a previously-decided matter. Justice Diane Campbell dismissed the motion but gave leave to the Crown to make a small amendment to one of the Replies.

General Electric Canada Company (“GECC”) is the successor by amalgamation to General Electric Capital Canada Inc. (“GECCI”), and GECC had inherited commercial debts owed by GECCI. GECC was reassessed and denied the deduction of fees paid to its parent corporation (“GECUS”) for guaranteeing the inherited debts. However, GECCI had previously litigated the deductibility of those fees and won (see General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 563, aff’d 2010 FCA 344). The current appeal involves similar issues, but with different taxpayers (GECC instead of GECCI) and tax years. In their application, the Appellants argued that the Crown was trying to relitigate issues that had been decided in the previous appeal.

The Court first dealt with the Appellant’s contention that res judicata precluded the Crown from having the issues reheard in another trial. Res judicata may take one of two forms: “cause of action” estoppel or “issue” estoppel. For either to apply, the parties in the current matter must have been privy to the previous concluded litigation. The Appellants said GECC had been privy to the decision since both it and GECCI were controlled by a common mind. The Court dismissed that argument since the appeals involve different tax years from those in the previous concluded litigation and, therefore, reflect different causes of action.

The Appellants also argued that it was an abuse of the Court’s process to relitigate the purpose and deductibility of the fees since the debt and the fee agreements were substantially the same as those in the previous concluded litigation. They asked the Court to strike out references to those agreements from the Replies. The Crown’s counter-argument was that the nature of the agreements was a live issue since it was not established that the fee agreements between GECUS and GECC were the same as those with GECCI. The Court agreed and refused to strike the sections of the Replies referring to the agreements.

The Appellants also sought to strike parts of the Replies where the Crown denied facts which the Appellants said had been proven in the previous concluded litigation. Again, the Court noted that the issues in the present appeals were different than those at issue in the previous concluded litigation, and that the Appellants did not show that the facts at issue (which were part of a joint statement of facts in the prior case) had actually been considered by the Court in the prior decision. Since the facts had not been proven they were best left to be determined later at trial.

Further, the Appellants contested two theories reflected in the Replies that they characterized as a fishing expedition. The Appellants stated these theories were not used as a basis for the original reassessment and, therefore, violated the restrictions on alternative arguments under subsection 152(9) of the Act. The Court dismissed this argument, saying that the theories were simply alternative approaches to showing that the guarantee fees paid by GECC were not deductible. The Court held they were alternative pleadings and refused to strike them out. Further, the Appellants also argued that two separate basis for the reassessments (one based on paragraphs 247(2)(a) and (c); the other, on paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d)) should be pleaded as alternative grounds, since the two parts of that section were inconsistent with one another. This was dismissed on the basis that the two parts were complementary and were drafted in a way so that if both were satisfied, one would take precedence over the other.

Finally, the Appellants argued that they had been deprived of procedural fairness as the CRA had not consulted its own Transfer Pricing and Review Committee with respect to the reassessments, and the Appellants had been unable to make submissions to that committee. The Court held that there was no requirement that the committee consider the matter first and, even if there was, the Tax Court does not rule on administrative matters.

In the end, the Appellants succeeded on one minor point: the Crown will amend one paragraph in one Reply to clarify the distinction between legally binding guarantees and implied guarantees or support. The Crown was awarded costs.

, , ,

Tax Court of Canada confirms that pleadings will be struck out only in the “clearest of cases”