COMMENT: Is Canada’s GAAR still an enigma after Copthorne?
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

COMMENT: Is Canada’s GAAR still an enigma after Copthorne?


When it comes to the Canadian general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR), it could be said that the difference between acceptable and unacceptable tax planning is in the eyes of the beholder.


 The recent Supreme Court ruling in Copthorne was supposed to clear the air following a three-way split decision in the Lipson case.

Taxpayers hoped Copthorne would deliver some clarity as to how the courts should apply the GAAR.

But despite their best efforts, and detailed analysis, the Supreme Court judges appear to have failed.

They are not to be blamed for this. The problem is, by its very nature, a GAAR analysis seems to invoke a so-called “smell test”.

The Supreme Court has indicated the three facets to a GAAR analysis are: a tax benefit, an avoidance transaction, and abusive tax avoidance.

Essentially, all GAAR cases are decided on the third requirement, since the first two are usually easily proven.

Judge Rothstein openly rejected the use of moral opprobrium to decide whether the taxpayer’s actions were abusive in Copthorne and, at the same time, affirmed that the Duke of Westminster doctrine is still alive and well.

Yet there appears an irreconcilable conflict between the notion that taxpayers are entitled to plan to minimise their tax bills and the purpose of the GAAR, which is essentially designed to stop tax avoidance when all other statutes fail to protect against it.

Even if taxpayer actions follow the letter of the law, the authorities can invoke the GAAR to challenge them, and the courts must ultimately decide whether the avoidance was abusive – making it almost inevitable that a smell test will result.

In Copthorne, the non-resident shareholder invested C$97 million ($97.6 million) into the entity then tried to withdraw C$164 million without paying withholding tax.

Would the Supreme Court really have allowed the taxpayer to get away with this by saying the GAAR did not apply?

If a taxpayer like Copthorne decides to undertake an acceptable transaction – such as amalgamating to use losses – and then has two ways of carrying that out – vertical or horizontal amalgamation – then surely, if the Duke of Westminster has any meaning at all, that taxpayer should not be defeated by GAAR when it chooses the more tax effective way.

By this logic, Copthorne should have won the Supreme Court case.

The fact it did not perhaps shows that despite the clear attempt to avoid a smell test, such a test is an unavoidable component in deciding a GAAR case.

The law may well be in need of amendment, to eliminate a result that makes little tax policy sense. But as it stands, the principle established in Duke of Westminster suggests the court should have found in favour of the taxpayer.

Earlier cases such as Canada Trustco have demonstrated that the courts do have the flexibility to find the GAAR is not applicable.

However, after Copthorne, it is difficult to see how taxpayers can ever be confident that tax planning involving one or more transactions which are primarily tax-driven, will survive a GAAR challenge in future.

Further reading

Copthorne’s legacy: The future of Canada’s GAAR

What the Copthorne ruling means for future GAAR disputes in Canada

Canadian Supreme Court dismisses Copthorne appeal

Canadian Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Copthorne

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The ‘big four’ firm has threatened to legally pursue those behind the letter, which has been circulating on social media
The guidelines have been established in the wake of multiple tax scandals and controversies that have rocked the accounting profession
KPMG Netherlands’ former head of assurance also received a permanent bar and $150,000 fine; in other news, asset management firm BlackRock lost a $13.5bn UK tax appeal
The new, fully integrated office will also offer M&A, dispute resolution, IP and corporate tax services
The new guidance concerns a recent 1% excise tax on the repurchases of corporate stock for both US and certain foreign companies
Interpath has hired a managing partner from rival accounting firm BDO to lead the new operation
Survey results of over 28,000 in-house lawyers reveal that American in-house counsel place a higher value on the reputation of external advisers than their peers elsewhere
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Andrew Leigh also endorsed new legislation designed to prevent multinationals using complex corporate structures to reduce taxes
Nick Crama and Parwesh Bissumbhar, senior director and manager respectively at Alvarez & Marsal, outline practical advice for real estate managers to comply with DAC6 regulations
The finalists for the 13th annual awards revealed
Gift this article