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 2026

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

But businesses should remain flexible when choosing between internal and external resources to handle added ViDA complexity, ITR’s Indirect Tax forum also heard
Non-compliance from small businesses continues to account for most of the gap, HM Revenue and Customs revealed
The new managing director of R&D tax relief consultancy ForrestBrown tells ITR about his priorities for the business, where he’s focusing his time and what makes tax cool
PwC Australia’s response to its tax leaks scandal could give KPMG a useful case study, but so far there’s little sign of positive lessons learned
Tom Goldstein’s attempt to overturn his tax conviction was shot down; in other news, Deloitte promoted several tax partners in Italy
The tax advisory firm becomes the latest member of the Andersen Global network, which has more than 50,000 professionals worldwide
A revised Chapter VII signals a move away from mechanical TP approaches, stressing transaction understanding, functional analysis and context-driven documentation requirements
HMRC’s growing focus on evidencing tax decisions is shifting attention from technical accuracy to governance, requiring businesses to demonstrate how positions were reached and documented
Australia’s Department of Finance will also commission an independent review of KPMG’s governance, culture, ethics and integrity frameworks, it has revealed
In the second instalment of this two-part series, Jayne Stokes takes a practical approach to navigating the capital v revenue question for UK R&D claims for software development, and shares pointers for businesses
Gift this article