fmc-law.com RSS Feeds - Publications - Financial Serviceshttp://www.fmc-law.com/upload_net/rss/en/Financial_Services.xmlThu, 31 May 2012 10:01:18 GMTen-us5The Tax Court has once again considered the meaning of the phrase “beneficial owner” for purposes of the tax treaty between Canada and the Netherlands. It has also once again ruled in favour of the taxpayer in determining that a Dutch holding company was the “beneficial owner” of amounts received from a related Canadian company. On February 24, 2012, the Tax Court of Canada released its eagerly-anticipated decision in Velcro Canada Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen, which addresses the applicable Canadian withholding tax rate in respect of cross-border royalty payments within a multinational corporate group. The decision comes almost four years after the Tax Court released its landmark decision in Prévost Car Inc. v. The Queen, which dealt with the identical treaty interpretational issue in the context of cross-border dividend payments. These decisions are relevant to any multinational enterprise using a foreign holding company as an investment/financing vehicle and provide considerable comfort concerning the tax effectiveness of such structures. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0212_Peters_Matthew_Beneficial_Owner_CRA_Assessment_of_Velcro_Does_Not_Stick.aspxMon, 27 Feb 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0212_Peters_Matthew_Beneficial_Owner_CRA_Assessment_of_Velcro_Does_Not_Stick.aspxTaxpayers that have implemented cross-border tower financing structures and that have claimed a Canadian tax deduction for any U.S. taxes paid should revisit their structures carefully in light of the Tax Court of Canada’s recent decision in FLSMIDTH Ltd., v. The Queen (2012 TCC 3), which is the Court’s first decision concerning tower structures. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Peters_Matthew_Tower_Financing_Deduction_Denied.aspxFri, 13 Jan 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Peters_Matthew_Tower_Financing_Deduction_Denied.aspxFMC partner Marc Lemieux, provided editorial guidance on the book “Droit bancaire en 2011 : Nouveautés et tendances,” published by Éditions Thémis. The book is a compilation of lectures given by Marc and other banking law experts on May 27, 2011, at a conference organized by Université de Montréal’s Centre for the Law of Business and International Trade. It includes pieces on compensation as a guarantee mechanism, banks contractual and non-contractual liability, cashing and paying with fraudulent cheques, and the impact of the new Québec Business Corporations Act. This omnibus book also offers a critical reappraisal of the secured financing rules applicable in Québec and discusses the latest developments pertaining to case-law and regulations in the banking law area. For further information about the book, please visit Éditions Thémis’ website at http://www.editionsthemis.com/livres/livre-4818-le-droit-bancaire-en-2011-nouveautes-et-tendances.html (in French only).http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0412_Droit_bancaire_en_2011_Nouveautes_et_tendances.aspxSun, 01 Jan 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0412_Droit_bancaire_en_2011_Nouveautes_et_tendances.aspxThe Supreme Court of Canada rendered a much awaited judgment in the case of Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. R. on July 15, 2011. In that case, a lawyer, Mr. McLeod, owed tax to the federal government.   Revenue Canada issued requirements to pay to Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (the «Bank»), in a branch of which Mr. McLeod maintained a trust account for the purposes of his legal practice. Mr. McLeod also maintained at the same branch of the Bank a joint account together with another person. The requirements to pay were issued pursuant to pursuant to section 224 of the Income Tax Act («ITA»), which provides that the Minister of National Revenue (the «Minister») may require a person who is, or will be within one year, liable to make payment to a tax debtor to instead pay the money the person owes the tax debtor to the Receiver General. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/Lemieux_Marc_Judgment_Canada_Trustco_Mortgage_Co_v_R_July_15_2011.aspxMon, 18 Jul 2011 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/Lemieux_Marc_Judgment_Canada_Trustco_Mortgage_Co_v_R_July_15_2011.aspxJennifer Dezell and Jill Macgillivray co-wrote the article "Two in the Bush: When a Registered Security Interest is Not a Bird in the Hand" published in the National Banking Law Review. On November 5, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada gave judgment in two companion cases involving security granted under s. 427 of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46 [the Bank Act], in competition with security granted under the Personal Property Security Act, S.S. 1993, c. P-6.2 [the PPSA]. The two cases, Bank of Montreal v. Innovation Credit Union and Royal Bank of Canada v. Radius Credit Union Ltd. gave the Court an opportunity to bring some clarity to what had become, in the Court’s words, “a muddled area of law”. Reproduced with permission of the publisher from National Banking Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2011. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0411_Two_In_The_Bush_NBLR.aspxFri, 17 Jun 2011 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0411_Two_In_The_Bush_NBLR.aspx