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

IRS: Bitcoin Not a Currency for Tax Purposes

As expected, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service has provided some guidance on the U.S. tax treatment of Bitcoin.

In Notice 2014-21 (March 25, 2014), the IRS stated that Bitcoin is property and not currency for tax purposes.  According to the Notice, “general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.”  Some of the U.S. tax implications of Bitcoin include the following: (1) taxpayers receiving Bitcoins as payment for goods or services must include in their gross income the fair market value of the Bitcoins; (2) taxpayers will have a gain or loss upon the exchange of Bitcoins for other property; and (3) taxpayers who “mine” Bitcoins must include the fair market value of the Bitcoins in their gross incomes.  The IRS also confirmed in its statement that employment wages paid in Bitcoins are taxable.

This guidance from the IRS accords with the positions taken by tax authorities in other jurisdictions.

Commentators have considered the tax implications of Bitcoin in Canada both before and after the CRA released its most recent guidance in CRA Document No. 2013-0514701I7 “Bitcoins” (December 23, 2013).

The Canadian government has taken the position that Bitcoin is not legal tender. The Canada Revenue Agency has stated that, when addressing the Canadian tax treatment of Bitcoin, taxpayers must look to the rules surrounding barter transactions and must consider whether income or capital treatment arises on Bitcoin trading (i.e., speculating on the changes in the value of Bitcoins).

While Bitcoin currency exchanges encounter uncertainty (or fail entirely), and Bitcoin prices continue to fluctuate, the global tax implications of Bitcoin are becoming clearer.

, ,

IRS: Bitcoin Not a Currency for Tax Purposes

Tax Court Upholds Penalties Imposed for False Statements

In Morton v. The Queen (2014 TCC 72), the Tax Court of Canada upheld penalties imposed by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act””) despite novel arguments by the taxpayer to the contrary.

In this case, the taxpayer originally filed his income tax returns for the relevant years and paid taxes on the reported income.  After the normal reassessment periods expired, utilizing the taxpayer “fairness” provisions in subsection 152(4.2) of the Act, the taxpayer filed T1 Adjustment Requests containing false information in the form of additional income and expenses that would place the taxpayer in a tax loss position in each year. If the Minister had accepted the adjustments, the taxpayer would have received refunds in excess of $202,000.

However, the taxpayer’s plan did not work out as expected. The Minister not only denied the T1 Adjustment Requests, but also levied penalties in excess of $75,000 pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act.  These penalties were the subject of the appeal to the Tax Court.

During testimony, the taxpayer admitted to supplying false information in the T1 Adjustment Requests intentionally, knowingly and without reliance on another person. In defense of his actions the taxpayer claimed that he was under stress due to financial difficulties, a marriage breakdown and loss of access to his business books and records. At trial, the Tax Court found as a matter of fact that the misrepresentations were made fraudulently and rejected the taxpayer’s defense since no documentary evidence could be supplied in respect of the alleged stress.

The remainder of Justice Bocock’s decision contained a thorough analysis of the provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Act in the context of levying a penalty pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act. Justice Bocock provided the following insights:

  • Even where information is supplied to the Minister outside of the context of filing a return for a particular taxation year, if the taxpayer makes fraudulent misrepresentations sufficient to assess under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) of the Act, for instance in requesting that the Minister reopen the taxation year under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act, the Minister may assess penalties for a statute barred year.
  • The penalty provisions in subsection 163(2) of the Act apply even in the absence of the Minister issuing a refund or reassessment that relies upon the incorrect information. The Tax Court found it would be absurd to require the Minister to rely on the fraudulent misrepresentations before levying a penalty; and
  • The meaning of the words “return”, “form”, “certificate”, “statement” and “answer” in subsection 163(2) of the Act should be defined broadly to include documents such as the T1 Adjustment Request. Limiting the application of penalties to prescribed returns and forms ignores the plain text, context and purpose of the Act and would lead to illogical results.

It should come as no surprise that the Tax Court upheld the penalties. Nevertheless, the decision provides an enjoyable and thought provoking analysis of the provisions contained in subsections 152(4.2) and 163(2) of the Act.

, ,

Tax Court Upholds Penalties Imposed for False Statements

Sales of condominium units under audit by Canada Revenue Agency

A Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) audit initiative is targeting taxpayers who have recently sold condominium units they did not occupy or occupied for only a short period of time (the “CRA Condo Project”).

The CRA is reassessing some of these dispositions on the basis that the condo was sold in the course of business, treating the profit as income (instead of capital gains) and, in some cases, assessing gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act. In doing so, the CRA may be incorrectly reassessing some taxpayers whose gains are legitimate capital gains and that may be subject to the principal residence exemption (click here for a discussion of the principal residence exemption).

Consider this example. A taxpayer signs a pre-construction purchase agreement for a condo in 2007.  In 2009, the unit was completed and occupied by the taxpayer, before the entire development was finished and registered in land titles.  Land titles registration occurs in 2010, but shortly thereafter the taxpayer sells the condo for a profit.  Ordinarily, one would conclude the condo was held on account of capital and the gain would be at least partially exempt from tax on the basis that condo was the taxpayer’s principal residence.  The CRA may be inclined to reassess on the basis that land title records show the taxpayer on title for only a short time, as though the taxpayer had intended to merely “flip” the condo rather than reside in it.

This assessing position may be incorrect because the buyer of a condo does not appear on title until the entire condominium development is registered.  In fact, several years can pass from the date of signing the purchase agreement to occupancy to land titles registration – and, accordingly, the taxpayer’s actual length of ownership will not be apparent from the land title records.

This type of situation could cause serious problems for some taxpayers. If a taxpayer is audited and subject to reassessment on the basis that their entire gain should be taxed as income, the taxpayer will need to gather evidence and formulate arguments in time to respond to an audit proposal letter within 30 days, or file a Notice of Objection within 90 days of the date of a reassessment.

Taxpayers could respond to such a reassessment by providing evidence that they acquired the condo with the intent that it would be their residence, and that the subsequent sale was due to a change in life circumstances.  Taxpayers may wish to gather the following evidence to support such claims:

  • Purchase and sales agreements;
  • Letter or certificates granting permission to occupy the condo;
  • Proof of occupancy, such as utility bills, bank statements, CRA notices, identification (such as a driver’s license) showing the condo as a residence; or
  • Evidence of a change in life circumstances which caused the condo to no longer be a suitable residence, including:
    • Marriage or birth certificates;
    • A change of employer or enrollment in education that required relocation; or
    • Evidence showing the taxpayer cared for a sick or infirm relative, or had a disability that precluded using a condo as a residence.

Taxpayers should be prepared to provide reasonable explanations for any gaps in the evidence.  If a taxpayer wishes to explore how best to respond in the circumstances, they should consult with an experienced tax practitioner.

, , , , ,

Sales of condominium units under audit by Canada Revenue Agency

Provincial Income Allocation: Salaries and Wages to Include All Taxable Benefits

In the Provincial Income Allocation Newsletter No. 4 (March 2013), the Canada Revenue Agency notes that the Allocation Review Committee (“ARC”) has changed its position on amounts previously excluded in calculating “salary and wages paid in the year” for provincial income allocation purposes:

Effective for the 2013 tax year, the amount of salaries and wages paid in the year for the purpose of provincial income allocation calculations will include all taxable benefits that are to be included in the employees’ income in the year. This includes deemed amounts such as stock option benefits under section 7 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), regardless of whether these benefits are deductible in calculating the employer’s income.

Corporations having a permanent establishment in more than one province will need to consider the ARC’s change in position when preparing their next income tax return.  Applying the previous year’s method of calculation salaries and wages may fail to include all of the amounts now required to be included in the calculation.

, ,

Provincial Income Allocation: Salaries and Wages to Include All Taxable Benefits

Could solicitor-client privilege be a hallmark of a reportable transaction under proposed s. 273.3 of the Income Tax Act?

Under proposed 237.3 of the Income Tax Act, a “reportable transaction” is an avoidance transaction that has two of three “hallmarks” (fee hallmark, confidential protection hallmark, or contractual protection hallmark). For a brief summary of proposed s. 237.3, see “Tax Avoidance Transaction Reporting” by Brian Carr and Zahra Nurmohamed in Resource Sector Taxation (vol. VIII, no. 1).

Following release of the draft legislation, many tax advisors were concerned that the definition of “confidential protection” was too broad. In response, the recent Technical Notes on proposed s. 237.3 released by the Department of Finance offer the following interpretation:

Based on the definition “confidential protection”, the circumstances described in paragraph (b) of the definition “reportable transaction” would exist in respect of an avoidance transaction or series of transactions that includes the avoidance transaction if an advisor or promoter in respect of the transaction or series obtains or obtained anything that would prohibit the disclosure to any person or to the Minister of details or the structure of the avoidance transaction or series that includes the avoidance transaction under which a tax benefit could result. This is in contrast to a situation in which a client of an advisor benefits from the existence of solicitor-client privilege in respect of information regarding the avoidance transaction or series of transactions, and which would not give rise to a “hallmark” in respect of the avoidance transaction or series. See the explanatory notes accompanying new subsection 237.3(11) for further details about solicitor-client privilege in the context of new section 237.3.

It appears that the Department of Finance believes that the existence of solicitor-client privilege is not “confidential protection” for the purposes of s. 237.3, though a literal reading of the definition of “confidential protection” does not appear to draw this distinction.

Are the Technical Notes on this issue sufficient comfort for tax advisors? Is this the last statement from the Department of Finance on the subject? Stay tuned for further developments.

, , ,

Could solicitor-client privilege be a hallmark of a reportable transaction under proposed s. 273.3 of the Income Tax Act?

No Medal for CRA’s Questionable Treatment of Canadian Olympic Medalists

On August 13 I came across this article in the Globe and Mail outlining how CRA treated prizes received by Canadian Olympic Medalists.

Gold medalists receive a $20,000 prize from the Canadian Olympic Committee, Silver medalists $15,000 and Bronze medalists $10,000. The CRA asserts that those amounts are taxable. The CRA’s position is based on what can only be described as a questionable interpretation of Income Tax Regulation 7700:

7700. For the purposes of subparagraph 56(1)(n)(i) of the Act, a prescribed prize is any prize that is recognized by the general public and that is awarded for meritorious achievement in the arts, the sciences or service to the public but does not include any amount that can reasonably be regarded as having been received as compensation for services rendered or to be rendered.

This regulation is directly related to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded in 1986 to Dr. John C. Polanyi of the University of Toronto. There was considerable public sentiment that Dr. Polanyi not be subject to income tax on this prize. As a result the Income Tax Act was amended to introduce the concept of a tax exempt “prescribed” prize. It is one of the most straightforward provisions in Canadian tax law. All that is required is:

    1. recognition of the prize by the general public; and
    2. that the prize is awarded for meritorious achievement in the arts, the sciences or service to the public (I am intentionally omitting the irrelevant language about compensation for services).

Surprisingly, the CRA has concluded that Canada’s Olympic medalists were not being awarded for “service to the public”:

I must clarify that the media reports you refer to dealt not with the value of the medals themselves but with the prize money the Canadian athletes who won medals at the Games. Paragraph 56(1)(n) of the Income Tax Act states that the total of all amounts received in the year as, or on account of a prize for achievement in a field of endeavour that the taxpayer ordinarily carries on should be included in the taxpayer’s income. This provision of the Act would not normally apply to your example of a lottery winner; however, paragraph 56(1)(n) is sufficiently broad as to apply to a prize awarded to an athlete for winning an Olympic medal.

I note that the Act provides an exception to this rule for a prescribed prize. For purposes of this exception, section 7700 of the Income Tax Regulations defines a “prescribed prize” as any prize that is recognized by the general public and that is awarded for meritorious achievement in the arts, the sciences, or in service to the public. Although winning an Olympic medal may be an internationally recognized achievement and could indirectly promote a sense of nationalism, such a prize is not awarded in recognition of service to the public and therefore would not be a prescribed prize and would not fall within the exception.

CRA Document 2008-0300071M4 “Olympic medals” (26 June 2009)

Since it first participated in the games of 1900, Canada has won 278 medals in the Summer Games (an average of 11 per Games) and 145 in the Winter Games (an average of 7 per Games). It is astonishing that the CRA and the Department of Finance would regard the taxation of these awards as material. To suggest that these young men and women who spend years of their lives training for the chance once every four years to put the Canadian flag and anthem on display for the entire world to see and hear are not engaged in service to the Canadian public is not only unsupportable in light of the text, context and purpose of the provision, but serves to undermine the federal government’s own financial support of amateur athletics and best and brightest of Canada’s Olympic athletes. It is hoped that the CRA sees the light sooner rather than later and changes its position accordingly.

, , , ,

No Medal for CRA’s Questionable Treatment of Canadian Olympic Medalists

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act – Moldowan Overruled!

It’s been just over four months since the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) heard oral argument in The Queen v. John H. Craig (see our prior blog post for coverage of the hearing and background on section 31), the only section 31 restricted farm loss case to reach the SCC since the oft-criticized Moldowan v. R., 1977 DTC 5213.

Result: Moldowan has been overruled. It took an uncharacteristically short period of time for the SCC to render its judgment – the unanimous decision emphatically stated that “Moldowan cannot stand.”

Justice Rothstein delivered the reasons, which prescribe a new analysis to be undertaken when a taxpayer needs to determine if his or her income from farming activities (such as a horse racing or breeding business), when combined with some other source of income (such as employment or business income) constitutes a “chief source of income.” If this test is satisfied, then the taxpayer may deduct the full amount of any losses from the farming operation against the other source of income, without restriction. If the test is not satisfied, then section 31 restricts the amount of the deductible loss in any given taxation year to $8,750.

The New Test: The new test outlined by the SCC is still a fact-based analysis to be applied to the particular circumstances of the taxpayer, and has two steps:

Step 1: At the outset, a determination needs to be made that the farming business is in fact a business (a source of income from which losses may be deducted), as opposed to a personal endeavour. This test is enunciated in Stewart v. Canada (2002 SCC 46) as the “commercial manner” test, stating that the farming operation is a business if there is no personal or hobby element; or if there is a personal or hobby element, then the venture must be undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner “in accordance with objective standards of businesslike behaviour” in order to be considered a business.

Step 2: Once it is determined that the farming operation is a business, the taxpayer is entitled to full deduction of farming losses against another source of income if it is determined that farming and the other source of income is his or her chief source of income, based on the following factors, taken together: the amount of capital invested in farming and the other source of income; the income from each of the two sources of income; the time spent on the two sources of income; and the taxpayer’s ordinary mode of living, farming history and future intentions and expectations. To be successful, it must be shown that the taxpayer has invested significant funds and has spent considerable time attending to the farming business and that the taxpayer places significant emphasis on both the farming and non-farming sources of income. Further, it is not necessary that income from the farming business exceed income from the other source of income – this fact is irrelevant to the analysis.

The new test could be described as the “significant endeavors” test – which is much more palatable than the defunct ‘reasonable expectation of profit’ test or ‘three classes of farmer’ test that has now been buried along with Moldowan. RIP.

, ,

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act – Moldowan Overruled!

More on Rectification in Quebec

Rectification continues to be a topic of heated debate in Quebec. After a series of decisions by the Court of Appeal last year on the subject, the Quebec Superior Court rendered an important judgment on June 19, 2012 (Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. v. Couche-Tard Inc., 2012 QCCS 2745) on a motion for declaratory judgment involving a well-known Canadian business.

This case is a reminder that rectification is not always available to correct errors made in the planning of a transaction, even if the unintended tax consequences result in a loss of several million dollars for a taxpayer.

The Facts

On April 14, 2005, Mac’s Convenience Store Inc. (“Mac’s”) borrowed $185 million from a U.S. corporation, Sildel Corporation (“Sildel”), which was a “specified non-resident” for purposes of the thin capitalization rules in subsection 18(4) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). Under this loan, Mac’s paid interest to Sildel ($911,854 in 2006, $11,069,590 in 2007, and $10,674,247 in 2008). These interest payments were deducted in computing the income of Mac’s for income tax purposes in the relevant years. This loan was fully repaid by Mac’s in 2008.

On April 25, 2006, Mac’s declared and paid a dividend of $136 million to Couche-Tard Inc. (“CTI”) out of its retained earnings. The decision to declare this dividend was taken after consultation with professional advisers.

More than 18 months later, it was discovered that the dividend of $136 million paid to CTI had the effect of raising the “debt” portion of Mac’s debt-to-equity ratio vis-a-vis Sildel for thin capitalization purposes beyond the then statutory limit of 2:1 under subsection 18(4) of the Act. In early 2008, Mac’s notified the CRA of the situation. After conducting an audit, the CRA issued notices of reassessment to Mac’s denying the deduction of all the interest it paid to Sildel during taxation years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Mac’s filed a motion for declaratory judgment with the Quebec Superior Court requesting that the dividend of $136 million declared on April 25, 2006 and paid to the respondent CTI be cancelled retroactively and replaced by a reduction of Mac’s paid-up capital in the same amount. This rectification would have required no transfer of funds between the parties, but it would have allowed Mac’s to deduct the interest paid to Sildel in computing Mac’s income under the thin capitalization rules.

To read the full article, click here.

, , , ,

More on Rectification in Quebec

Further thoughts on the Fundy Settlement decision: Supreme Court offers a nuanced view of trust residence

In Garron Family Trust v. The Queen (2009 TCC 450), Justice Judith Woods of the Tax Court of Canada came down with a very broad new rule for determining the residence of trusts.

[162]  I conclude, then, that the judge-made test of residence that has been established for corporations should also apply to trusts, with such modifications as are appropriate. That test is “where the central management and control actually abides.”

This was viewed widely as a repudiation of the historic test based on the residence of the trustee. Many tax professionals thought that the test for residence of a trust required a determination of the residence of the majority of the trustees and where their functions were performed, and that it was not necessary to go beyond this test.

The Federal Court of Appeal in St. Michael Trust Corp. v. Canada (2010 FCA 309) appeared to endorse Justice Woods’ new legal test but in a somewhat guarded fashion:

[63]    St. Michael Trust Corp. argues that a test of central management and control cannot be applied to a trust because a trust is a “legal relationship” without a separate legal personality. I do not accept this argument. It is true that as a matter of law a trust is not a person, but it is also true that for income tax purposes, a trust is treated as though it were a person. In my view, it is consistent with that implicit statutory fiction to recognize that the residence of a trust may not always be determined by the residence of its trustee.

[64]    St. Michael Trust Corp. also argues that the residence of the trust must be determined as the residence of the trustee because section 104 of the Income Tax Act embodies the trust, as taxpayer, in the person of the trustee. In my view, that gives section 104 a meaning beyond its words and purpose. Section 104 was enacted to solve the practical problems of tax administration that would necessarily arise when it was determined that trusts were to be taxed despite the absence of legal personality. I do not read section 104 as a signal that Parliament intended that in all cases, the residence of the trust must be the residence of the trustee.

When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal, some tax professionals were puzzled.  These tax professionals believed that it was unlikely the decision would be reversed since the Crown had a very strong factual case that the trusts in question were managed in Canada by the trust beneficiaries.  The decision released on April 12 by the Supreme Court (Fundy Settlement v. Canada, 2012 SCC 14) in fact dismissed the appeal in somewhat cursory fashion.

[15]    As with corporations, residence of a trust should be determined by the principle that a trust resides for the purposes of the Act where “its real business is carried on” (De Beers, at p. 458), which is where the central management and control of the trust actually takes place.  As indicated, the Tax Court judge found as a fact that the main beneficiaries exercised the central management and control of the trusts in Canada.  She found that St. Michael had only a limited role ― to provide administrative services ― and little or no responsibility beyond that (paras. 189-90).  Therefore, on this test, the trusts must be found to be resident in Canada.  This is not to say that the residence of a trust can never be the residence of the trustee.  The residence of the trustee will also be the residence of the trust where the trustee carries out the central management and control of the trust, and these duties are performed where the trustee is resident.  These, however, were not the facts in this case.

[16]    We agree with Woods J. that adopting a similar test for trusts and corporations promotes “the important principles of consistency, predictability and fairness in the application of tax law” (para. 160).  As she noted, if there were to be a totally different test for trusts than for corporations, there should be good reasons for it.  No such reasons were offered here.  [Emphasis added]

On a close reading it is arguable that the Supreme Court has gently tempered the new rule set out by Justice Woods and, to some extent, by the Federal Court of Appeal.  Where the trustee does what it is supposed to do, including managing the trust and its properties, the operative test remains the residence of the trustee.  It would seem that only where the trustee carries on those “management and control” activities in a place other than where the trustee is resident, or where the trustee abdicates many of its powers to a third party, that Justice Woods’ new test becomes relevant.

, , ,

Further thoughts on the Fundy Settlement decision: Supreme Court offers a nuanced view of trust residence

Arguments conclude in first transfer pricing case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada: GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen

On Friday morning January 13, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen. See our earlier posts on the case here and here.

By way of background, Glaxo Canada purchased ranitidine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Zantac, a branded ulcer medication, from a non-arm’s-length non-resident. In 1990-1993, Glaxo Canada paid approximately $1,500 per kg of ranitidine, while generic purchasers of ranitidine were paying approximately $300 per kg. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Glaxo Canada under former section 69 of the Income Tax Act on the basis that the taxpayer had overpaid for the ranitidine in light of the fact that generic manufacturers were paying considerably less for the same ingredient.

The issue before the Tax Court was whether the amount paid by the taxpayer to the non-arm’s-length party was “reasonable in the circumstances.” The Tax Court held that (a) the “comparable uncontrolled price” (or CUP) method was the most accurate way to determine the arm’s-length price for ranitidine and (b) the appropriate comparable transactions were the purchases of ranitidine by the generic manufacturers. Subject to a relatively minor adjustment, the Tax Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court had erred in its application of the “reasonable in the circumstances” test, and that it should have inquired into the circumstances that an arm’s-length purchaser in the taxpayer’s position would have considered relevant in deciding what reasonable price to pay for ranitidine. The Court of Appeal set aside the lower court judgment and sent the matter back to the Tax Court to be reconsidered.

The Crown appealed and Glaxo Canada cross-appealed the portion of the order sending the matter back to the Tax Court. The appeal was heard by a seven-member panel of the Court (Chief Justice McLachlin, Justice Dechamps, Justice Abella, Justice Rothstein, Justice Cromwell, Justice Moldaver and Justice Karakatsanis).

The Crown argued that the analysis under subsection 69(2) required a “stripping away” of the surrounding circumstances of the transaction in question and, in particular, the license agreement pursuant to which Glaxo Canada was entitled to market and sell the drug ranitidine under the brand name Zantac.  Having done that, the only relevant comparator was the price of ranitidine on the “open market”, namely, the price paid for ranitidine by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court asked a number of questions about whether subsection 69(2) (with its reference to “in the circumstances”) makes the ultimate use of the ranitidine relevant to the analysis. Several judges asked whether it made a difference that the ranitidine purchased by Glaxo Canada was to be marketed and sold as Zantac, a branded product that would yield a higher retail price than the equivalent generic product.  Justices Abella and Rothstein were particular active during this discussion.

In stark contrast to the Crown’s position, Glaxo Canada contended that the only question to be answered under subsection 69(2) was whether two arm’s-length parties, sitting across a boardroom table, would arrive at the same deal that was concluded by Glaxo Canada and its non-resident parent company. Justice Abella wondered if, even in those circumstances, an arm’s-length party would pay $1,500 for a kilogram of ranitidine.

Chief Justice McLachlin asked about bundling and its relationship to transfer pricing – if the $1,500/kg price included an amount paid for something other than ranitidine why was it not identified by Glaxo Canada as such and why was withholding tax not remitted thereon under section 212 of the Act? Counsel for Glaxo Canada responded by making two points: First, if a portion of the price paid by Glaxo Canada for ranitidine were more properly characterized as royalties, for example, such amounts would be expenses to Glaxo Canada and thus there was no mischief from a transfer pricing perspective in bundling them into the cost of the goods. Second, it is not the policy or practice of the CRA to require taxpayers to unbundle intellectual property or other intangibles from tangible property as, presumably, the practical burden imposed by such a requirement would be difficult to overstate. It was unclear whether the tension between the issues of bundling and arm’s-length pricing was resolved at the hearing.

In a nutshell, the choice before the Court is this: Is the fact that the ranitidine purchased by Glaxo Canada was destined to become Zantac relevant to the analysis under subsection 69(2)? Glaxo contends that it is, while the Crown contends that it is not.

On the cross-appeal, Glaxo Canada argued that it had met the case against it on the pleadings and the matter should, therefore, have concluded at the Federal Court of Appeal and should not have been sent back to the Tax Court. There were a number of questions from the bench on that point.

The panel reserved judgment on both the appeal and cross-appeal.

, , , , ,

Arguments conclude in first transfer pricing case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada: GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen