News of Note
CRA is willing to treat the deemed s. 146(8.8) RRSP benefit on death as a withdrawal of an excess RRSP contribution
Email this ContentAn individual, who made an excess RRSP contribution in 2015, dies in 2016. CRA noted that technically, in order for the executor to claim a s. 146(8.2) deduction in the terminal return for the excess contribution, there was required to be “a payment from the RRSP in respect of undeducted premiums of the taxpayer … received by the taxpayer in the year,” but then stated:
[T]he CRA generally accepts that an amount deemed to be received by a deceased annuitant under subsection 146(8.8) and included in the annuitant’s income for the year of death under subsection 146(8) … should be treated as a payment received by the annuitant for the purposes of subsection 146(8.2).
Thus, the deduction generally would be available (which was to be claimed directly in the terminal return without using a Form T746.)
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.2 under s. 146(8.2) and s. 146(8.8).
CRA indicates that a common-law partners’ separation agreement can engage the s. 73 or inter-RRSP rollover even if technically they have no legal rights to settle
Ss. 73(1.01)(b), 146(16) and 146.3(14) provide for a rollout to a common-law partner or a partner plan pursuant to a written separation agreement governing the division of the common-law partners’ assets in settlement of their rights arising on the breakdown of their relationship. CRA considers that, although there is no right in Quebec arising out of a common-law partnership (as per Éric v. Lola, 2013 SCC 5), it nonetheless “is not impossible for the annuitant to determine to create rights under a written separation agreement relating to the division of property with the annuitant’s common-law partner or former common-law partner” – and that “such an agreement could be concluded at the time of separation, whether or not a common-law union agreement providing for the rights of each in the event of the union's failure has been previously signed.”
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.1 under s. 146(16)(b).
The s. 220(4.51) exemption from providing departure-tax security on up to $100,000 of capital gains is available for larger gains
The Rulings Directorate confirmed that, for purposes of calculating the s. 220(4.5) security for departure tax that an emigrating individual has elected to defer, the individual qualifies for the exemption under s. 220(4.51) from providing security on the first $100,000 of capital gains even if such gains exceed $100,000.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 5 June 2017 Internal T.I. 2014-0561391I7 F under s. 220(4.51).
CRA lists its requirements for a partner to claim, for FTC purposes, a disproportionate share of withholding tax borne by the partnership
The general CRA policy in Folio S5-F2-C1 is that a Canadian partner is only entitled to claim foreign tax credits based on its pro rata share of the foreign withholding tax borne by the partnership on dividends etc. received by it. If, however, the Canadian partner can provide “sufficient, clear, and unambiguous evidence with his tax return” that the … foreign tax paid by [the] Partnership was computed by reference to his treaty status with [the particular foreign country]” then all of such tax can be claimed by that partner for FTC purposes.
For example, A and B each have a 50% interest in the Partnership, and are resident in Country X and Canada, respectively. On payment of a $1,000 dividend by Xco (resident in Country X) to the Partnership, Xco, as required, withholds $25, calculated as 5% of the $500 portion of the dividend beneficially owned by B.
CRA indicated that, in addition to the evidence of payment of the foreign tax discussed in Folio S5-F2-C1, the partner making such a non-pro rata FTC claim should provide the name, Canadian tax ID number (if any), country of residence, nature and amount of the partnership interest, calculated income allocation and allocated foreign withholding tax amount of each partner – together with evidence demonstrating that the withholding was computed by reference to each partner’s treaty status.
Those drafting partnership agreements might consider this list.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 8 September 2017 External T.I. 2014-0558601E5 under s. 126(1).
CRA indicates that foreign currency is not property for purposes of the suspended-loss rules
A U.S.-dollar loan owing to an affiliated trust is repaid on its maturity, thereby resulting in an s. 39(2) FX loss to the borrower. The trust promptly relends those U.S.-dollar to the borrower. Is the s. 39(2) loss (which is deemed to be a loss from the disposition of foreign currency) suspended under s. 40(3.4) (or is it a superficial loss under s. 40(2)(g)(i), if the borrower is an individual)?
CRA indicated that the issue here is whether the USDs received by the borrower under the new loan are identical property to the foreign currency that it was deemed to have disposed of under s. 39(2), and noted that under the "property" definition in s. 248(1), “money could constitute property unless a contrary intention is evident” – but then stated:
However, the CRA's position is not to consider money to be identical property for the purposes of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(i) or subsections 40(3.3) and (3.4) in a circumstance such as this where a taxpayer sustains a loss under subsection 39(2).
Therefore, no suspended (or superficial) loss.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.10 under s. 40(3.3).
9199-3899 Québec – Quebec Court of Appeal finds that using the investment allowance to generate a capital tax savings abused its purpose of merely avoiding double taxation
In order to reduce Quebec capital tax, a Quebec company lent $350M on a non-interest-bearing basis to its parent on January 27, 2005, and claimed this amount as an investment allowance in computing its capital tax liability at its January 31, 2005 year end. On February 15, 2005, the loan was repaid so that the parent did not account for this loan in its capital when it, in turn, calculated its capital tax liability. In confirming the application of the Quebec general anti-avoidance rule to deny the investment allowance, Vézina JCA stated the resulting capital reduction “did not serve to rectify a prejudice, but created a benefit, which is contrary to the object and spirit of this disposition of simply addressing double taxation and not creating a tax exemption.”
This sounds like the MLI, Art. 6 statement that Treaties are intended “to eliminate double taxation … without creating opportunities for non-taxation.”
If correct, this case would suggest that GAAR can apply to simple and obvious transactions, rather than being restricted to transactions which are complicated and too clever by half. (Cf. Univar, where Webb JA indicated that funding an inbound purchase with a Canadian Buyco with high outside capital was such an obvious surplus-stripping stripping technique that it could not be considered an abuse of s. 212.1 - so that doing something more complicated to accomplish the same thing also was not abusive.)
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 9199-3899 Québec inc. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2017 QCCA 1524 under s. 245(4).
CRA indicates that s. 39(1.1) mostly only applies to those euros and U.S. dollars in your wallet
S. 39(1.1) applies if, because of any FX fluctuation, an individual has made a gain or loss on capital account from the disposition of a foreign currency. CRA does not consider that s. 39(1.1) could apply to a sum of money in foreign currency held on deposit by an individual at a financial institution, and would instead regard this as a debt of that institution owing to the individual. Accordingly, the usual rules (e.g., ss. 39(1) and 70)) would apply if that debt were disposed of on capital account.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.8 under s. 39(1.1).
Income Tax Severed Letters 18 October 2017
This morning's release of six severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
Plains Midstream – Tax Court of Canada finds that s. 16(1) operates symmetrically (no creditor interest – no debtor interest deduction)
To over-simplify somewhat, Amoco agreed to assume a $225M loan that was due in perhaps 43-years’ time and that was effectively non-interest-bearing (or more precisely, only bore interest to the extent of oil production from the Beaufort Sea) in consideration inter alia for the payment to it of $17.5 million by the debtor. Amoco treated the $207.5M difference between these two amounts as simple interest (no compound interest), which it deducted over the term of the loan on a straight-line basis. Someone then figured out that this worked out to a 29% p.a. interest rate on the $17.5M, and at trial it reduced its claim to a 6% rate. Its position was that under s. 16(1), regard should be had to the economic substance of the situation, which was that it received $17.5 million as the present value of $225 million.
One of the key points for Hogan J was that the Japanese creditor (APCJ ) was not entitled to any interest on the assumed loan. In denying any interest deduction, he stated:
The language used in subsection 16(1) of the ITA stating that the payment is “deemed to be interest on a debt obligation held by the person to whom the amount is paid or payable” reflects Parliament’s intention that both parties receive symmetrical treatment. …
[N]o part of the amount that is due by the Appellant can reasonably be regarded as interest that is payable to APCJ under the terms and conditions of the … loan. …
[I]t is unthinkable that Parliament would have intended the asymmetrical treatment proposed by the Appellant as this would open the door to transactions in which one party receives a tax benefit and the other party receives a non-taxable payment, resulting in a one-sided tax expenditure. Explicit language would have been expected in this regard, as is the case with subsection 12(9) of the ITA and section 16.1 of the ITA.
Amoco assumed the loan as part of intricate arrangements for its acquisition of Dome Petroleum for $5.2B under a Plan of Arrangement. Hogan J stated obiter that the $207.5M difference might instead be an addition to the cost to Amoco of its Dome Petroleum shares.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Plains Midstream Canada ULC v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 207 under s. 16(1) and s. 54 – adjusted cost base.
CRA states that MacDonald is “irreconcilable” with George Weston
We have prepared brief summaries of the questions posed at the 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, and are providing translations of the CRA preliminary written answers and of the Finance answers, as the cae may be, on a piecemeal basis. We will also provide complete translations of the questions posed to CRA when they are officially released, towards or about year end. (We have also completed translating the answers at the (regular) 6 October 2017 APFF Roundtable.)
Turning to Q.16, in commenting on MacDonald, CRA stated:
The approach taken by the TCC in this case respecting, inter alia, the linkage principle appears to be irreconcilable with previous jurisprudence, including George Weston … .
Nevertheless, the CRA is currently considering whether to change its approach pending the Federal Court of Appeal decision in James S. A. MacDonald.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 6 October 2017 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, Q.16 under s. 9 - capital vs. profit – futures/forwards/hedges.