Canada: Canadian Supreme Court confirms GAAR test

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Canadian Supreme Court confirms GAAR test

On December 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada (2011 SCC 63), its fourth decision on the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR). The court unanimously dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, upholding the two lower courts.

Two Canadian corporations which had been parent-child were amalgamated horizontally as a result of two sets of transactions. First the parent sold the subsidiary corporation to its non-resident shareholder resulting in sibling corporations. This reorganisation was designed to allow the PUC of the shares of both corporations to be aggregated by amalgamation, and facilitated unrelated tax planning. Later, the corporations were amalgamated as Copthorne, which then paid a return of capital to the non-resident shareholder free of withholding tax using the PUC.

The minister applied the GAAR asserting that the PUC of the subsidiary's shares should have been cancelled on the amalgamation with its former parent. Copthorne was assessed for the resulting withholding tax.

The court held that the transactions were a single series, and that the sale of the subsidiary corporation was an avoidance transaction (a transaction within a single series that results in a tax benefit and is not undertaken primarily for non-tax purposes). The court determined that the subsequent amalgamation had been undertaken "in contemplation" of the earlier sale and thus met the extended statutory definition of a "series". The court concluded that it was the intention of parliament that "in contemplation" would also apply to past events.

On the final test, the court reaffirmed its earlier jurisprudence and the requirement for a "unified textual, contextual and purposive approach" to determine whether the transaction resulted in a misuse or abuse of the provisions of the tax statute. The allegedly abused provision is examined, with proximate and complementary provisions and extrinsic aids, to determine "what the provision was intended to do". Taking this approach, the court concluded that these transactions abused the PUC computation provision relating to amalgamations. In context, the purpose of this provision was to prevent the duplication of PUC on an amalgamation.

Edward Rowe (edward.rowe@blakes.com) and John May (john.may@blakes.com)

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Tel: +1 416 863 2400 Fax: +1 416 863 2653

Website: www.blakes.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In the first of a two-part series on capital v revenue in R&D, Jayne Stokes explores these key concepts and where UK companies need to tread carefully
Magnus Pantzar is set to join as managing director after spending nearly a decade as EQT’s global head of tax
The OECD’s project was up for debate as Matt Williams spoke to ITR following BDO’s tax strategist survey, which uncovered increased complexity and costs among multinationals
Sponsored by Deloitte
Sameer Nurmohamed, partner, Deloitte Legal Canada
Sponsored by Deloitte
George Ankomah, partner, Tax & Regulatory Services, Deloitte Africa (Ghana)
The recent spree of firm mergers and acquisitions proves that geographic scale is the name of the game
The big four spin-off firm becomes Taxand’s second UK member; in other news, Haynes Boone launched a UK tax practice
Sponsored by Deloitte Luxembourg
Jean-Michel Henry and Mona El-Begawi of Deloitte Luxembourg examine the complexities created by timing differences in Luxembourg, EU, and OECD tax regimes
Stephanie Pantelidaki’s economic expertise will give Norton Rose Fulbright’s other teams ‘extra firepower,’ she says
Sponsored by MFA Legal & Tech
Samuel Fernandes de Almeida of MFA Legal & Tech assesses whether Portugal’s 7.5% surcharge on non-residents aligns with the EU’s free movement of capital principle and passes the proportionality test
Gift this article