Converging Tracks? Recent Developments in Canadian and U.K. Approaches to Tax Avoidance

• Author: Judith Freedman
• Pages: 171-180

171

[six ]

Converging Tracks?

Recent Developments in Canadian and U.K.

Approaches to Tax Avoidance

judith freedman*

In , Heward Stikeman wrote of ta x-avoidance decisions in Canada a nd

the United Kingdom that “[f]or many years the Courts of both our coun-

tries appeared to have been on par allel tracks. ose tracks are now di verg-

ing—perhaps!”



Following decisions i n two pairs of cases — Canada Trustcoand

Mathewin Canada, and Barclaysand Scot tish Providenti n the United

Kingdom —we might say that after s ome years of divergence, these tracks

are now converging again — perhap s! e “perhaps” is important. Tax-

avoidance cases often leave as ma ny questions open as they a nswer, and

* KPMG Professor of Taxation Law, Universit y of Oxford. e author than ks David Duf‌f

and Glen Loutzenh iser for their helpful co mments. She remains solel y liable for the con-

tents of this note.  is chapter was origi nally published in () : C an. Tax. J. –.

 H. Stikeman, “Furni ss v. Dawson: e Canadian Appro ach” ()  Fiscal Studies – at .

e Queen v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co.,  SCC  [Canada Trustco]. is note

does not purport to g ive full coverage of th is major case and its compa nion, Mathew,

below note , which have been wel l covered already by Canad ian commentators and wi ll

no doubt be the subject of much f urther discu ssion. For an excellent ana lysis, see Chapter

 in this tex t by David G. Duf‌f, “e Supreme Cour t of Canada and the Genera l Anti-

Avoidance Rule: Canada Trustco and Mathew.”.

Mathew v. e Queen,   SCC  [Mathew].

Barclays Mercantil e Business Finance Ltd . v. HM Inspector of Taxes, [] UKH L ,

[] STC  [Barclays].

Inland Revenue v. Scott ish Provident Instit ution, [] UKHL , [] STC  [Scot-

tish Provident].