Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, (2005) 339 N.R. 323 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | October 19, 2005 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2005), 339 N.R. 323 (SCC);2005 SCC 55;[2005] 2 SCR 643;[2005] 5 CTC 244;339 NR 323;[2005] SCJ No 55 (QL);[2005] ACS no 55;[2005] CarswellNat 3215;259 DLR (4th) 225;59 DTC 5538 |
Kaulius v. MNR (2005), 339 N.R. 323 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. OC.021
Eugene Kaulius, Steven M. Cook, Charles E. Beil, Craig C. Sturrock, Amalio De Cotiis, John N. Gregory, 347059 B.C. Ltd., Frank Mayer, John R. Owen, Verlaan Investments Inc., William John Millar, NSFC Holdings Ltd., TFTI Holdings Limited, Douglas H. Mathew, Ian H. Pitfield, Estate of the late Lorne A. Green and Innocenzo De Cotiis (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(30067; 2005 SCC 55; 2005 CSC 55)
Indexed As: Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
October 19, 2005.
Summary:
A mortgage lender used s. 18(13) of the Income Tax Act (Can.) to transfer its unrealized losses to a non-arm's length partnership. An arm's length party acquired a 99% interest in the non-arm's length partnership. That 99% interest was then sold to a second partnership. The losses were allocated to the second partnership's partners under s. 96 of the Act. The partners deducted their respective share of the losses from their own incomes. The Minister of National Revenue invoked the general anti-avoidance rule found in s. 245 of the Act, reassessed the partners and disallowed their deduction claim. The partners appealed.
The Tax Court of Canada, in a decision reported [2002] D.T.C. 1637; [2003] 1 C.T.C. 2045, dismissed the appeal. The partners appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 311 N.R. 172, dismissed the appeal. The partners appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Income Tax - Topic 1151
Income from a business or property - Deductions - Noncapital losses - General - [See Income Tax - Topic 9517 ].
Income Tax - Topic 3901
Interpretation - General - [See Statutes - Topic 502 ].
Income Tax - Topic 5061
Partnerships - Losses - General - [See Income Tax - Topic 9517 ].
Income Tax - Topic 9517
Tax evasion and tax avoidance - General principles - General anti-avoidance rule - A mortgage lender used s. 18(13) of the Income Tax Act (Can.) to transfer its unrealized losses to a non-arm's length partnership - An arm's length party acquired a 99% interest in the non-arm's length partnership - That 99% interest was then sold to a second partnership - The losses were allocated to the second partnership's partners under s. 96 - The partners deducted their respective share of the losses from their own incomes - The Minister of National Revenue invoked the general anti-avoidance rule found in s. 245 and disallowed the deduction - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Minister's decision, holding as follows: "Section 18(13) preserves and transfers a loss under the assumption that it will be realized by a taxpayer who does not deal at arm's length with the transferor. Parliament could not have intended that the combined effect of the partnership rules and s. 18(13) would preserve and transfer a loss to be realized by a taxpayer who deals at arm's length with the transferor. To use these provisions to preserve and sell an unrealized loss to an arm's length party results in abusive tax avoidance under s. 245(4). Such transactions do not fall within the spirit and purpose of s. 18(13) and s. 96, properly construed."
Statutes - Topic 502
Interpretation - General principles - Intention of legislature - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the proper interpretative approach respecting ss. 18(3) and 96 of the Income Tax Act - The court held: "There is an abiding principle of interpretation: to determine the intention of the legislator by considering the text, context and purpose of the provisions at issue" - The court said that this applied to the Income Tax Act and the general anti-avoidance rule under s. 245 as much as to any other legislation -See paragraphs 40 to 43.
Cases Noticed:
Minister of National Revenue v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (2005), 340 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 54, folld. [para. 1].
OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2002] 2 F.C. 288; 275 N.R. 238; 2001 FCA 260, not folld. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 18(13), sect. 96(1)(g), sect. 245(1), sect. 245(2), sect. 245(3), sect. 245(4) [para. 28].
Counsel:
Kim Hansen, for the appellants;
Graham Garton, Q.C., Anne-Marie Lévesque and Alexandra K. Brown, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Kim Hansen, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;
John H. Simms, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 8, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on October 19, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., and Major, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...Martin v MNR, [1948] Ex CR 529, [1948] CTC 189, 3 DTC 1199 ......................170 Mathew v Canada, 2005 SCC 55 .........................................................................470 Mattabi Mines Ltd v Ontario (Minister of Revenue), [1988] 2 SCR 175, [1988] 2 CTC 294, [1988] SCJ No......
-
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada; Inco Ltd. v. Canada, 2006 SCC 46
... [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1082 , 2001 SCC 62 ; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601 , 2005 SCC 54 ; Mathew v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643, 2005 SCC 55 ; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622 ; Tip Top Tailors Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] S.C.R. ......
-
Gendis Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2006) 205 Man.R.(2d) 164 (CA)
...to. [para. 82]. Mathew v. Canada - see Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue. Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643; 339 N.R. 323 ; 2005 SCC 55 , refd to. [para. Huth v. Clarke (1990), 25 Q.B.D. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90]. Shannon v. Lower Mai......
-
Cole c. Canada,
...2015 FCA 17, [2015] 4 F.C.R. 468; McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; Mathew v. Canada, 2005 SCC 55, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643.DISTINGUISHED:Frye v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 264, 338 N.R. 180 COLE v. CANADA [2016] 1 F.C.R.DÉCISIONS......
-
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada; Inco Ltd. v. Canada, 2006 SCC 46
... [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1082 , 2001 SCC 62 ; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601 , 2005 SCC 54 ; Mathew v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643, 2005 SCC 55 ; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622 ; Tip Top Tailors Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] S.C.R. ......
-
Gendis Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2006) 205 Man.R.(2d) 164 (CA)
...to. [para. 82]. Mathew v. Canada - see Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue. Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643; 339 N.R. 323 ; 2005 SCC 55 , refd to. [para. Huth v. Clarke (1990), 25 Q.B.D. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90]. Shannon v. Lower Mai......
-
Cole c. Canada,
...2015 FCA 17, [2015] 4 F.C.R. 468; McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; Mathew v. Canada, 2005 SCC 55, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643.DISTINGUISHED:Frye v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 264, 338 N.R. 180 COLE v. CANADA [2016] 1 F.C.R.DÉCISIONS......
-
Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Alberta, 2012 ABCA 232
...to. [para. 22]. Mathew v. Canada - see Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue. Kaulius et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643; 339 N.R. 323 ; 2005 SCC 55 , refd to. [para. OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2002] 2 F.C. 288 ; 275 N.R. 238 ;......
-
Treaty Shopping: An Update
...[2009] CTC 314 (SCC) . Refer also to The Queen v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, [2005] 5 CTC 215 (SCC); and to Mathew v. The Queen, [2005] 5 CTC 244 6. Refer to Article 28(3) of the Canada-Luxembourg Tax Convention, which addresses holding companies formed under special Luxembourg laws a......
-
Table of Cases
...Martin v MNR, [1948] Ex CR 529, [1948] CTC 189, 3 DTC 1199 ......................170 Mathew v Canada, 2005 SCC 55 .........................................................................470 Mattabi Mines Ltd v Ontario (Minister of Revenue), [1988] 2 SCR 175, [1988] 2 CTC 294, [1988] SCJ No......
-
General Anti-Avoidance Rule
...Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) [ ITA ], subpara 40(2)(g)(i). 4 Ibid , s 245. 5 Canada Trustco , above note 1. 6 Mathew v Canada , 2005 SCC 55. 7 Lipson v Canada , 2009 SCC 1 [ Lipson ]. General Anti-Avoidance Rule 471 principle in the heyday of laissez-faire economics; the hardening of ......
-
Tax treaty shopping and the GAAR: MIL (Investments) S.A. v. The Queen.
...relevant statutes) where to permit it would result in abusive tax avoidance. (2) [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, 2005 SCC 54 [Canada Trustco]; [2005] 2 S.C.R. 643, 2005 SCC 55 [Mathew]. In both cases, the Supreme Court applied a three-part test to determine the applicability of the GAAR: (1) there mus......