All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Canada: Guidance relating to Canadian tax treaties and foreign limited partners

Canada Free Trade

Although not legally binding, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) recently answered three questions about the entitlement of UK minority limited partners (Partners), under the Canada-UK income tax convention (Treaty), to a reduction of the Canadian 25% withholding rate on certain dividend and interest payments.

gagnon.jpg
jones.jpg

Jean Marc Gagnon

Josh Jones

The context relates to a UK limited partnership (LP) that held all the shares of a Canadian corporation (Holdco) that in turn held all the shares of a Canadian operating corporation (Opco).

Subparagraph 10(2)(a) of the Treaty reduces the Canadian withholding tax rate on dividends paid by a Canadian corporation to a UK company if the recipient controlled directly or indirectly at least 10% of the voting power in the Canadian corporation. The CRA reiterated its position that it looks through a partnership to determine if its partners are entitled to treaty benefits in respect of the income of the partnership. The CRA stated that in this case, the LP's general partner controlled Holdco in such a way that the Partners would only be considered to indirectly control the voting power in Holdco if the partnership agreement specifically provided the Partners with the ability to vote on Holdco's shares.

The CRA also considered whether a Partner can own directly or indirectly shares of Holdco for purposes of subparagraph 10(3)(b) of the Treaty, which generally provides a withholding tax exemption on dividends paid to certain pensions or benefits organisations unless such an organisation owns directly or indirectly more than 10% of the capital or the voting power of the payor corporation. The CRA confirmed that each Partner would be considered to own indirectly Holdco shares (capital) in proportion to its partnership interests in LP. The CRA concluded that the words "directly or indirectly" in subparagraph (b) enabled it to attribute a particular percentage of LP's ownership of Holdco shares to each Partner, notwithstanding that under partnership law, partners are not generally considered to own partnership property.

The CRA was finally asked whether each Partner can be considered to be dealing at arm's length with Opco for purposes of subparagraph 11(3)(c) of the Treaty, which provides an exemption for interest paid to arm's length persons. Canadian law also provides an exemption from withholding tax for most interest paid to arm's length non-residents. For this purpose, a recipient partnership with at least one non-resident partner is deemed to be a non-resident person, and the CRA's view is presumably that for withholding purposes interest paid by Opco to LP is non-arm's length interest because LP controls Opco (through Holdco). However, as the CRA looks through a partnership to determine treaty benefits, the analysis under the Treaty is different.

The CRA confirmed that, unless the partnership agreement provides otherwise, the general partner is the sole partner controlling Holdco such that the general partner was not dealing at arm's length with Holdco or Opco. Accordingly, if each Partner dealt at arm's length with each other partner (including the general partner) and the partnership agreement did not remove control from the general partner, the CRA concluded that each Partner should be viewed as dealing at arm's length with Opco for the purposes of the Treaty. This position is in line with another administrative position of the CRA confirming that, if a partner has little or no say directing the partnership's operations, the partner is generally considered to be dealing at arm's length with the partnership. The CRA's position is also consistent with positions adopted by the CRA in situations involving partners and partnerships where a control position or exercise an influence over operations is key.

Several income tax conventions entered into by Canada include similar concepts as the Treaty, such that the recent CRA positions should have broader impact.

Jean Marc Gagnon (jean.gagnon@blakes.com) and Josh Jones (josh.jones@blakes.com)

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Tel: +1 514 982 5025 and +1 416 863 4278

Website: www.blakes.com

More from across our site

The fast-food company’s tax settlement with French authorities strengthens the need for businesses to review their TP arrangements and documentation.
The full ALP model will be adopted through a new TP regime, which is set to boost the country’s investments and tax certainty.
Tax professionals have called on the UK government to reconsider its online sales tax as it would affect the economy at the worst time.
Tax professionals have called on companies to act urgently to meet e-invoicing compliance targets as the EU plans to ramp up digitisation.
In the wake of India’s ambitious 25-year plan for economic growth, ITR has partnered with leading tax commentators to discuss what the future will look like for India and for the rest of the world.
But experts cast doubt on HMRC's data and believe COVID-19 would have increased the revenue shortfall.
EY’s plan to separate its auditing and consulting businesses might lessen scrutiny from global regulators, but the brand identity could suffer, say sources.
Multinationals are asking world leaders to put a scale on carbon pricing to tackle climate change at the 48th G7 summit in Germany, from June 26 to 28.
The state secretary told the French press that the country continues to oppose pillar two’s global minimum tax rate following an Ecofin meeting last week.
This week the Biden administration has run into opposition over a proposal for a federal gas tax holiday, while the European Parliament has approved a plan for an EU carbon border mechanism.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree