Canada: Residence not a prohibited ground of treaty discrimination
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Canada: Residence not a prohibited ground of treaty discrimination

A recent decision of Canada's Federal Court of Appeal considered the non-discrimination provision of the Canada-UK Tax Convention finding that it did not apply because the Canadian domestic legislation in question discriminated based on residency rather than nationality.

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that Canada is not prohibited under the treaty from discriminating against taxpayers based on their residency.

In Saipem UK Limited v The Queen, the taxpayer, a non-resident of Canada, claimed deductions in computing its taxable income for purposes of the Canadian Income Tax Act, from activities carried on by it in Canada through a permanent establishment (PE) within the meaning of the treaty. The deductions related to certain non-capital losses from business activities carried on in Canada by a corporation, SEI, that at all material times was related to the taxpayer within the meaning of the act and that was wound up into the taxpayer. The Minister of National Revenue denied the deductions on the basis that the Act required each of the taxpayer and SEI to be a Canadian corporation as defined in the act, and that definition required each corporation to be resident in Canada and either (i) incorporated in Canada, or (ii) resident in Canada throughout the period that began on June 18 1971.

Article 22(1) of the treaty prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality, and the taxpayer asserted that the provision of the act restricting the deduction to Canadian corporations violated its rights as a UK national, and for purposes of the treaty, to non-discriminatory treatment guaranteed by Article 22. In early 2011, the Tax Court of Canada rejected the taxpayer's position.

Janette Pantry & Rebecca Levi

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Tel: +1 416 863 2400

Fax: +1 416 863 2653

Website: www.blakes.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As the firm declined to speak with ITR over its progress, senator Deborah O’Neill branded PwC Australia’s recent parliamentary responses as ‘unsatisfactory’
A Swedish company’s CEO working part-time in Denmark led to a noteworthy PE decision; in other news, Latham & Watkins grew its London tax team
Rather than outright replace human intelligence, AI solutions can serve as the ‘infinite intern’ tax advisers need to automate onerous tasks, argues Russell Gammon of Tax Systems
The lack of provision for bilateral advance pricing agreements is a notable omission from proposed reforms of Brazil’s transfer pricing rules
Ursula von der Leyen is under pressure to ensure her new team makes competitiveness a top priority. How tax policy is designed and implemented is crucial, writes Ralph Cunningham
Speaking exclusively at ITR’s Transfer Pricing Forum in Europe, the Commission’s Marc Clercx also addressed industry concerns over the arm’s-length principle
After a protracted offensive from 10 Australian professional bodies, a Senate motion to strike out contentious new tax ethical rules has failed, but concessions were secured
The closely watched decision represents the final nail in the coffin for Apple and serves as a warning to other multinationals, experts have suggested
UK tax advisers have branded Reeves’ pledge to cap corporation tax at 25% as “a smart move” and “an easy give”
In the wake of the global rankings release, we focus on the top performers across EMEA in the second of three regional analyses
Gift this article