Under s. 98(3), a partnership may be dissolved on a tax-deferred basis generally if the partners receive an undivided interest in the partnership’s property and an election is timely filed with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). In 2014-0540611E5, the CRA said that an election filed under s. 98(3) (Form T2060) must refer to all the partnership’s property. In the CRA’s view, if an election does not refer to all the partnership property, the entire election is invalid. Furthermore, the CRA said that the Minister has no discretion to amend an (incomplete) election, because s. 98(3) is not among the provisions referred to in s. 600 of the Regulations.
In The Estate of the Edward S. Rogers v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 348, the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) held that the surrender of stock options in 2007 to a non-arm’s length corporate employer, in exchange for a cash payment, gave rise to capital gain under s. 39 and not employment income under s. 7. The payment was not taxable under s. 7 because s. 7(1)(b.1) had not yet been enacted, which provision would have clearly treated the surrender payment as employment income under s. 7. The Crown’s alternative arguments that the surrender payment should be taxed as (i) employment income under s. 5 or s. 6, (ii) a shareholder benefit under s. 15, or (iii) an adventure in the nature of trade under s. 9, were soundly rejected. The TCC instead held that the rights under the stock option agreement – including the right to surrender the stock option for cash and referred to as a “stock appreciation right” or “SAR” – constituted property, which property was disposed of on the surrender generating a capital gain under s. 39.
In 2014-0534841C6, the CRA commented on the definition of majority-interest beneficiary in subsection 251.1(3) of the Income Tax Act. The CRA is of the view that a person does not have to be a beneficiary of a trust to be a majority-interest beneficiary of the trust.
A majority interest beneficiary is defined as a person whose beneficial interest in the income (or capital) of the trust, if any, has, together with beneficial interests in the income (or capital) of the trust of all persons with whom the person is affiliated, a FMV greater than 50% of the FMV of all beneficial interests in the income (or capital) of the trust.
Suppose a wife is the sole beneficiary of a trust and the husband does not have any beneficial interest in the trust at all. According to the CRA, the husband would still meet the definition of “majority-interest beneficiary” by affiliation with his wife who has a greater than 50% beneficial interest in the income of the trust.
This CRA interpretation has far reaching consequences in light of the recently enacted trust loss restriction event rules in section 251.2. A trust loss restriction event occurs when a person becomes a majority-interest beneficiary of the trust. In the above scenario, if the husband is added to the trust as a beneficiary having more than 50% interest in the interest of the trust, there is a question of whether the addition of the husband triggered a loss restriction event. Based on the CRA’s view, there should be no loss restriction event because the husband was already a majority-interest beneficiary and did not become a majority-interest beneficiary on being added to the trust. This result appears to be consistent with the policy of the loss restriction event rules which is not intended to apply to changes in the beneficiaries of family trusts.
In 2013-0499121E5, the CRA considered a simple case where an upstream loan was made to a Canadian parent (Canco) by a second tier foreign affiliate (FA 2), and was effectively sheltered by Canco’s exempt surplus in respect of FA 2. FA 2 later liquidated into the first tier foreign affiliate (FA 1). The CRA said that it would apply the helpful rule in s. 248(28)(a) to remedy the technical double tax problem that arises on these facts. Double tax arises because: (a) the loan assigned to FA 1 on the liquidation of FA 2 would become a second upstream loan to Canco from FA 1, and (b) the first loan from FA 2 would not have been repaid by Canco on the liquidation of FA 2.
In 2014-0536581I7, the CRA was asked why the so-called fresh start rule for foreign affiliates (s. 95(2)(k) & (k.1)) applies only to income from a foreign affiliate’s business and not to the affiliate’s income from property. In response, the CRA said that “the threshold amount of activity that is required to cause any corporation (including a FA) to be considered to be carrying on business is extremely low”. This general principle (among others) will be discussed at the upcoming annual conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation in Vancouver on December 1, 2014.
The recent decision of Hauser v. R. 2014 TCC 328 is an illustration of the principles to be applied when determining whether moving expenses are deductible. The taxpayer moved in order to have a shorter commute to her new job. The only issue was whether her new home is at least 40 kilometers closer to her new work location such that the move would be an “eligible relocation” as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Minister argued that the distance should be measured by a major urban road. If that is the appropriate method of measurement, the new home is only 25 kilometers closer to the new work location.
The taxpayer argued that the preferred route of travel is a freeway around the city to bypass detours and delays caused by the construction on the urban road. Using the freeway distances, the new home is 45 kilometer closer to the new work location.
Referring to Giannakopoulos v. MNR, 95 DTC 5477 (FCA), the Court said the relevant principle to be applied is that the distance must be determined by the shortest route that one might travel to work, as long as it is a normal route used by the traveling public.
The urban route is a shorter route than the freeway, but was it a normal route used by the traveling public while it was under construction? The Court said it is appropriate to determine the distance using a route under construction as long as the construction does not last an inordinate amount of time. The construction project started to cause delays in 2010 and was expected to be completed by November 2012. The taxpayer moved around August 2012. Although some evidence showed that the construction lasted longer than expected, the Court found the duration of the construction was not so long as to disqualify the urban road from being the basis of the calculation. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
On February 11, 2014, the federal government announced that it intended to repeal the so-called “immigrant trust” exception found in section 94 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “ITA”). Due to the limited transitional rules provided (and no grandfathering), taxpayers generally have (at most) until the end of this year to remedy immigrant trust structures before they become subject to Canadian tax.
By way of background, a non-resident trust is deemed to be resident in Canada under ITA 94 if there is a “resident beneficiary” under, or a “resident contributor” to, the trust. A long-standing exception to that rule applies to trusts the only contributors to which are individuals who have not been resident in Canada for more than 60 months – commonly referred to as “immigrant trusts”.
Under the draft legislation implementing the government’s announcement, immigrant trusts will generally be deemed resident in Canada from January 1, 2014 onwards (and subject to Canadian tax on income it earns thereafter) unless they meet two stringent criteria: (1) the trust would have been deemed resident in Canada from January 1, 2014 to February 10, 2014 if it were not for the “immigrant trust” exemption; and (2) no “contribution” (which can capture a wide array of transactions) is made to the trust after February 10, 2014 and before 2015. If those requirements are met, an immigrant trust will only generally be deemed resident in Canada beginning January 1, 2015 (provided the 60-month period has not already expired by that date).
Onerous income tax consequences may arise if an immigrant trust continues in existence beyond 2014 (even if the trust can avail itself of the delayed effective date). With the proper tax advice, it may be appropriate to take steps to wind-up or repatriate an immigrant trust structure. Unfortunately, the time for doing so is quickly running out.
In 2013-0506551E5, the CRA confirmed its view that a loan made after March 28, 2012 cannot benefit from the new regime for a “pertinent loan or indebtedness” (PLOI, s. 15(2.11)) if such loan were part of a “series of loans and repayments” which began before that time.
- Instead, the (original) loan made before March 29, 2012 would be caught by the deemed dividend rule in s. 15(2). The exception in s. 15(2.6) would not save this original loan from s. 15(2), because repayment of the loan would be part of the series of loans and repayments. Accordingly, any election later filed under s. 15(2.11) in these circumstances would be considered invalid.
- The CRA’s position applies only were there has been “a series of loans and repayments”. This latter concept is not satisfied where there is: (i) a bona fide loan for a genuine business purpose, (ii) a repayment of that loan from an independent source, and (iii) an unrelated subsequent loan for a wholly different purpose: see Meeuse v. The Queen, 94 D.T.C. 1397 (TCC), at paragraph 16.
In 2014-0531441E5, the CRA confirmed that payments to a US resident under an unfunded long-term disability (LTD) plan by a Canadian employer would be considered salary. As such, the payment would be subject to employment-related withholdings in Canada (under s. 153). These payments would also be considered pension income as defined in paragraph 3 of Article XVIII of the Canada-US tax treaty (Treaty). Accordingly, the US resident could file a tax return in Canada and request a refund of the amount withheld in Canada, to the extent such amount exceeded the maximum 15% rate specified in Article XVIII of the Treaty.
On October 21, 2014, Minister of Finance, Michael De Jong, tabled the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act (the “LNG Act”) for first reading in the BC legislature. The LNG Act imposes taxation on net income derived from natural gas liquefaction activity in respect of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) facilities in BC. The new regime will apply to taxation years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed LNG Act can be found here. An overview of the LNG Act’s application, published by the Province of BC, can be found here. Some of the key features of the LNG Act are as follows:
- Taxation under the LNG Act is separate from income tax levied under the Income Tax Act (Canada) and the provincial BC Income Tax Act. For some taxpayers all three taxation regimes will be applicable, but it is also possible for a taxpayer to be subject only to the LNG Act, and not the federal/provincial regimes.
- Taxation under the LNG Act is determined on a per-LNG facility basis. That is, a taxpayer may file a single return under which multiple income streams are consolidated at a single LNG facility. However, where a taxpayer generates income at more than one LNG facility, the taxpayer must file a separate return in respect of the income from each such LNG facility. The LNG Act contains detailed provisions on what constitutes liquefaction activities and LNG facilities.
- A taxpayer under the LNG Act is any person (corporation, individual or trust) that engages in or has income derived from liquefaction activities at an LNG facility in BC, whether or not the person is liable for any tax under the LNG Act. Such a taxpayer need not be resident in Canada nor is a permanent establishment in BC required. Partnerships are taxed at the partner level.
- The taxation base under the LNG Act is divided into two general schemes: taxation on net income and taxation on net operating income. A 3.5% rate of taxation is imposed on net income (this rate will be increased to 5% on net income for taxation years beginning on or after January 1, 2037). A 1.5% rate of taxation is imposed on net operating income.
- Net operating income (taxed at 1.5%) is based on a taxpayer’s profit or loss from business or property derived from liquefaction activities at, or in respect of, an LNG facility in BC. The computation of net operating income is similar to the computation of a taxpayer’s income under the Income Tax Act (Canada), adjusted for various inclusions and exclusions specific to the LNG context. Of particular relevance is the investment allowance deduction in respect of a taxpayer’s ‘adjusted capital investment account’ for an LNG facility.
- Net income (taxed at 3.5%, and rising to 5% in 2037) is a taxpayer’s net operating income plus any proceeds of the disposition of capital investment property that results in recapture, less certain deductions in respect of net operating losses and capital investment account balances (where applicable).
- The LNG Act contains a transfer pricing regime that is modeled on the transfer pricing regime under the Income Tax Act (Canada). A summary of the LNG transfer pricing regime, published by BC, can be found here. While both regimes rely on a similar application of the ‘arm’s length principle’, there are some key difference which should be observed. Most notably, under the federal regime, the transfer pricing rules apply to non-arm’s length transactions between taxpayers and non-resident taxpayers, while under the LNG Act, the transfer pricing rules apply to all non-arm’s length transactions (subject only to specific exclusions).
The LNG Act is not yet passed into law; however, persons active in the LNG sector should familiarize themselves with its potential application. The LNG Act should be carefully considered prior to carrying out investment or activity in BC’s LNG sector to ensure that such efforts are carried out in a tax-efficient manner.
The above points do not represent an exhaustive summary of the proposed LNG Act. Over the coming months, the new legislation will likely be the subject of increased commentary as it progresses through the BC legislature.