McKesson saga continues with new filing by taxpayer

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

McKesson saga continues with new filing by taxpayer

McKesson has filed a supplementary memorandum of fact and law after the Court of Appeal deemed its initial memorandum too lengthy. The controversial transfer pricing case, involving a trial judge’s recusal, appears unlikely to come to a conclusion anytime soon.

On January 5, McKesson filed its Supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law.

McKesson filed an initial Memorandum of Fact and Law on June 11 2014 which claimed that Justice Boyle, of the Tax Court of Canada, “erred” in his findings concerning a receivable sales agreement between McKesson Canada and its parent company (MIH) in Luxembourg.

In 2002, MIH bought receivables from McKesson for $460 million and purchased all eligible receivables daily, for the next five years, subject to a $900 million cap. McKesson used a discount rate of 2.206%.

Justice Boyle said an arm’s-length rate in the range of 0.959% to 1.17% would have been appropriate and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

On September 4 2014, Justice Boyle filed his recusal. The 47 page recusal stated that McKesson’s appeal contained “clear untruths” and made “allegations of impartiality”.

Supplementary memorandum of fact and law

McKesson filed the supplementary memorandum at the request of the Court of Appeal who found their initial memorandum “unnecessarily lengthy”.

The supplementary memorandum states that the reasoning behind Boyle’s recusal endangered “the appearance of fairness on appeal”.

The memorandum goes on to say that the recusal reasons:

· Are an improper attempt to influence the Court of Appeal;

· Undermine the solicitor-client relationship;

· Retrospectively reveal the trial judge’s disposition against the Appellant;

· Fundamentally misconstrue the Appellant’s arguments on appeal; and

· Raise an inescapable inference of animus against the Appellant.

The Crown has yet to file a responding memorandum.

While an outcome in the McKesson Canada Corp. versus The Queen is unlikely to happen anytime soon, one thing is clear - this has to be one of the most controversial and drawn out transfer pricing cases to date.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

FTI Consulting’s EMEA head of employment tax and reward tells ITR about celebrating diversity in the profession, his love of musicals, and what makes tax cool
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump have agreed that the countries will look to conclude a deal by July 21, 2025
The firm’s lack of transparency regarding its tax leaks scandal should see the ban extended beyond June 30, senators Deborah O’Neill and Barbara Pocock tell ITR
Despite posing significant administrative hurdles, digital services taxes remain ‘the best way forward’ for emerging economies, says Neil Kelley, COO of Ascoria
A ‘joint understanding’ among G7 countries that ‘defends American interests’ is set to be announced, Scott Bessent claimed
The ‘big four’ firm’s inaugural annual report unveiled a sharp drop in profits for 2024; in other news, Baker McKenzie and Perkins Coie expanded their US tax benches
Representatives from the two countries focused on TP as they met this week to evaluate progress under a previously signed agreement – it is understood
The UK accountancy firm’s transfer pricing lead tells ITR about his expat lifestyle, taking risks, and what makes tax cool
Dolphin Drilling intends to discuss the final liability amount and manner of settlement with HM Revenue and Customs
Winning the case against the 20% VAT imposition was always going to be an uphill challenge for the claimants, UK tax advisers argue
Gift this article