Canada: Supreme Court provides guidance on treatment of assumed liabilities in asset deals

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Canada: Supreme Court provides guidance on treatment of assumed liabilities in asset deals

stepak.jpg

jones.jpg

Paul Stepak


Josh Jones

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) tends to hear only a handful of tax cases each year. In its most recent tax decision, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. Canada, the court offered some guidance on the treatment of assumed liabilities in the context of a Canadian asset sale. The case relates to the sale of forest tenures by the taxpayer and whether the taxpayer was required to include in its proceeds of disposition an amount for reforestation obligations assumed by the purchaser in connection with the transaction.

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) had held that the taxpayer's proceeds of disposition were required to include the agreed value of the reforestation obligations. In reversing the FCA, the SCC held that the reforestation obligations were not a distinct liability that could be separated from the forest tenures (the amount of which would have been included in proceeds).

Instead, they were a cost embedded in the tenures which served to depress their value. Accordingly, the assumption of those obligations by the purchaser did not give rise to additional proceeds of disposition. While not dispositive of the matter, the SCC recognised that an interpretation of the tax statute that promotes symmetry (as between the tax consequences to the purchaser and vendor) and fairness is preferred over one that results in asymmetrical treatment.

It continues to be good practice for parties to a Canadian asset deal to agree on an allocation of purchase price; a negotiated allocation between arm's-length parties should generally be respected by the Canadian tax authorities.

Parties should also be sure that the contract clearly sets out the amount of the purchase price as finally determined, including a clearly specified amount of any itemised liabilities to be assumed. Based on the SCC's decision, obligations assumed by a purchaser that are embedded in the assets purchased may not need to be separately itemised.

Paul Stepak (paul.stepak@blakes.com)

Tel: +1 416 863 2457
Josh Jones (josh.jones@blakes.com)

Tel: +1 416 863 4278

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Website:www.blakes.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
Gift this article