Basic Principles

AuthorVern Krishna
ProfessionProfessor of Common Law, University of Ottawa Barrister at Law
Pages397-432
397
CHAPTER 16
BASIC PRINCIPLES
A. GENERAL COMMENT
Up to this point, we have looked at the rules in respect of the computa-
tion of net income, taxable income and tax payable. Most of the rules
apply to all taxpayers, including individuals, corporations and trusts.
We turn our attention now to the rules that apply specif‌ically to cor-
porations and their shareholders.
The complexity of corporate taxation derives from the division of
economic and legal ownership. In terms of economic relationships, the
shareholders of a corporation own its assets, whilst corporate prof-
its and losses accrue to their benef‌it or detriment. Thus, in economic
terms, the income and losses of the corporation ref‌lect upon the share-
holder’s f‌inancial stake in the corporation.
In corporate law, however, a corporation and its shareholders are
separate legal entities. Thus, shareholders do not have a direct legal
interest in the assets of the corporation, but have a legal interest in the
corporation’s equity.
This distinction between the economic and the legal relationships
between the shareholders of a corporation and the corporate entity
works well in corporate law. The corporation, which is a statutory en-
tity, allows shareholders to limit their personal liability for corporate
debts. Thus, for most corporate purposes, a creditor of a corporation
cannot attach personal liability to its shareholders.
INCOME TAX L AW398
Tax law generally follows the corporate model that a corporation
is a separate taxpayer in its own right.1 However, the legal distinction
between a corporation and its shareholders gives rise to diff‌icult prob-
lems. Tax law cannot focus solely on the legal relationship and com-
pletely ignore the economic relationship between a corporation and its
shareholders. Thus, although the corporation and its shareholders are
separate taxpayers, we shall see many tax rules that reach through the
corporation to its shareholders.
For most purposes, we calculate the income of a corporation in a
manner simil ar to that of an individual. Of course, a corporation ca nnot
claim personal tax credits and dependency deductions. But apart from
these disti nct circumsta nces, we determine the net income and ta xable
income of a corporation according to the general rules described in the
preceding chapters.
There are, however, two important differences in the taxation of in-
dividuals and corporations. First, most individuals (at least those who
are employees) f‌ile their income taxes on a cash basis. Corporations
may not use cash basi s accounting and must use the accr ual basis. This
requirement is implicit in section 9.
Second, individuals who are employees must report their income
on a calendar-year basis.2 In contrast, corporations may select their f‌is-
cal year on any twelve-month basis.3
B. THE CORPORATE ENTITY
1) Separate Legal Entity
A corporation is a “person” and, therefore, a “taxpayer.”4 The def‌ining
attribute of a corporation is that it is a legal entity distinct from its
shareholders.
Thus, unlike a partnership, which is a relationship between per-
sons carrying on business in common with a view to prof‌it,5 a corpora-
tion has a legal existence separate and apart from its shareholders.
Since a corporation is a separate entity, its property, assets and lia-
bilities belong to, or f‌low from, the corporation. This is so even if it ha s
only one shareholder who owns all of its issued and outst anding shares.
1 Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) [ITA], subs 248(1) “person,” “taxpayer.”
2 Ibid, para 249(1)(b).
3 Ibid, para 249(1)(a) and subs 249.1(1).
4 Ibid, subs 248(1) “person,” “taxpayer.”
5 See, for example, Partnerships A ct, RSO 1990, c P.5, s 2.
Basic Pri nciples399
The “one person company” is no less a separate legal identity than a
publicly-held cor poration.
2) The Salomon Doctrine
Salomon v Salomon & Co6 is the locus classicus upholding the principle
that a corporation has a legal identity that is distinct from its sharehold-
ers. Salomon incorporated a company to which he sold his unincorpor-
ated shoe manufacturing business in return for all but six of its issued
shares and £10,000 of secured debentures. When the company fell upon
hard times and was wound up a year later, the unsecured creditors, al-
leging that the company was a mere alias or agent of its principal share-
holder, claimed that Salomon was personally liable to indemnify their
claims. The House of Lords held that the parties had complied with all
of the requirements of the corporate statute authorizing the creation of
the company, that the corporation was not a sham, and that Salomon had
not acted fraudulently. As a secured creditor of the corporation, Salomon
ranked ahead of its unsecured creditors. As Lord Macnaghten said,
The company attains m aturity on its birth. There is no per iod of min-
ority — no interval of incapacit y . . . . The company is, at law, a differ-
ent person altogether from the s ubscribers to the memorandum; and,
though it may be that af ter incorporation the busines s is precisely the
same as it was before, the same persons are managers, and the same
hands receive the prof‌its, the company is not in law the agent of the
subscriber s or truste e for them. Nor are the subsc ribers, as members
liable, in any shape or form, except to the extent and in the manner
provided by the Act.7
3) Parent and Subsidiary
The principle that a corporation is a legal entity separate from its share-
holders also applies to the relationship between a parent company and
its subsidiary. Thus, in the absence of a specif‌ic statutory provision to
the contrary, a parent corporation and its subsidiary are separate and
distinct legal entities. This is so even where the parent owns all the
6 Salomon v Salomon & Co, [1897] AC 22 (HL).
7 Ibid at 51. Although Mr. Salomon had not comm itted any fraud on his creditors ,
it was found that he ha d sold his business to hi s company at an extravagant
price. As Lord Ma cnaghten stated, the price “re presented the sangui ne expecta-
tions of a fond owner rat her than anythin g that can be called a bus inesslike or
reasonable e stimate of value” (at 49).

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT