fmc-law.com RSS Feeds - Publications - Tax Dispute Resolutionhttp://www.fmc-law.com/upload_net/rss/en/Tax_Dispute_Resolution.xmlThu, 31 May 2012 10:01:43 GMTen-us5The March 29, 2012 Canadian federal budget (the “Budget”) proposes a number of changes to Canada’s thin capitalization rules that may have significant implications to cross-border financing. Clients should review existing financing arrangements to assess the potential implication of these changes and must carefully consider proposed Canadian investments to ensure compliance with the new regime. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Beefing_Up_Canada_Thin_Capitalization_Rules.aspxSun, 01 Apr 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Beefing_Up_Canada_Thin_Capitalization_Rules.aspxFederal Budget 2012 This annual publication is produced by the National Tax Group of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC), together with CCH.  This edition contains editorial comments regarding the tax proposals announced in the 2012 Federal Budget by the Honourable James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance.  Tax Analysis Several FMC tax lawyers are on the Editorial Board of the CCH Canadian Tax Reporter, and even more are involved in writing the CCH tax commentary in the Reporter. On March 29, 2012, FMC tax lawyers and CCH participated in the Budget lockup to produce the CCH commentary on the Budget's tax measures. Following the lockup, the document was reviewed by members of FMC’s National Tax Group who also had the opportunity to provide their commentary. To view the Resolutions and CCH editorial commentary, please click here. Federal Budget Documents For complete budget documents, please click here. Read more by clicking on the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Focus_On_Tax_Federal_Budget_2012.aspxThu, 29 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Focus_On_Tax_Federal_Budget_2012.aspxThe 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.aspxIn this article, Jacques Plante discusses CIBC World Markets Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal reducing the effectiveness of sections 403 of the Federal Courts Rules and 147 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). Based on this judgment, it appears as though the jurisprudence is moving towards creating a clear requirement for a principled basis for settlement in order for such settlement offers to have any relevance to or impact on cost awards. The parties to a dispute will have to be careful when drafting settlement offers if they hope to trigger any additional cost consequences after a successful hearing. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0212_Plante_Jacques_Settlement_Offers.aspxThu, 16 Feb 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0212_Plante_Jacques_Settlement_Offers.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.aspxOn December 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released its latest General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) decision in Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada.  The appeal was heard on January 21, 2011 by all nine of the Justices (Chief Justice McLachlin, Justice Binnie, Justice LeBel, Justice Deschamps, Justice Fish, Justice Abella, Justice Charron, Justice Rothstein and Justice Cromwell). Since the date of the hearing, Justices Binnie and Charron have retired.  This was the fourth GAAR appeal heard by the Supreme Court (the earlier cases were Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, Mathew v. Canada and Lipson v. Canada). Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1211_Spiro_David_Crown_Wins_GAAR.aspxMon, 19 Dec 2011 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1211_Spiro_David_Crown_Wins_GAAR.aspxIn this article, Douglas Stewart discusses House v. Her Majesty the Queen, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that provides a clear restatement of the rules respecting taxpayer's onus in federal tax appeals.   In House, the Tax Court found that the appellant had failed to “demolish” assumptions pleaded by the Minister of Finance with respect to an asset that the Minister alleged should have been included in the appellant’s income. In so doing, the Court dismissed testimony from the appellant and his witnesses, and cited the appellant’s failure to produce any documentary evidence. In its review of the Tax Court's decision, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed the proper analysis to be conducted in determining whether a taxpayer has satisfied its onus to demolish the Minister’s assumptions. The Court found that the Tax Court judge had misapplied this analysis by failing to accept the testimony of the appellant and his witnesses in satisfaction of the taxpayer’s initial onus, where there were no credibility issues. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1211_Stewart_Douglas_Onus_of_Proof.aspxThu, 01 Dec 2011 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1211_Stewart_Douglas_Onus_of_Proof.aspxThe CRA was asked whether the net smelter return of an asteroid mine is taxable under the Income Tax Act. The taxpayer is owned by Canadian investors, has Canadian directors and managers, employs Canadian staff, uses Canadian resources, and has its headquarters in Canada. The taxpayer is considering the positive and negative impacts of an outer space asteroid mining venture. The taxpayer stated that the Act requires taxpayers to pay income tax on their “worldly” income from all sources. The taxpayer interpreted “world” to refer to the domain of planet Earth. Accordingly, in the taxpayer’s view, the net smelter return of an asteroid mine earned by a Canadian corporation would not be taxable under the Act if the sale occurs at the shipping point (i.e., in outer space). Republished with permission. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1111_Tax_Topics_Fitzsimmons_November_2011.aspxThu, 10 Nov 2011 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1111_Tax_Topics_Fitzsimmons_November_2011.aspxThe Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in this case on July 21, 2011. Brick Protection Corp. (Brick Protection; now Trans Global Warranty Corp.) was a sister corporation of the Brick Warehouse Corp. (The Brick). Brick Protection sold extended warranties to consumers on appliances and furniture purchased through The Brick. The issue: Was Brick Protection Corp. doing business as an insurance company in Alberta? If so, they would be subject to insurance corporation tax under Part IX of the Alberta Tax Act (the Act; now in the Alberta Corporate Tax Act).  Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0911_Focus_On_Tax_Ken_Whitelaw.aspxWed, 21 Sep 2011 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0911_Focus_On_Tax_Ken_Whitelaw.aspxMargot Patterson and Tom Houston discuss the 5 Steps to Transition: the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. The new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (“CNCA”) is expected to come into force in the summer or fall of 2011, bringing with it a new framework for the governance and incorporation of associations, charities and other federal not-for-profit organizations. The CNCA will replace Part II of the Canada Corporations Act (“CCA”), which has set the rules for not-for-profit organizations since 1917.  Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0611_Focus_On_Canada_Not_For_Profit.aspxFri, 24 Jun 2011 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0611_Focus_On_Canada_Not_For_Profit.aspxFederal Budget 2011 - Update       This annual publication is produced by the National Tax Group of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC), together with CCH.This edition contains editorial comments regarding tax proposals announced in the first Federal Budget on March 22, 2011, and the second Federal Budget on June 6, 2011, by the Honourable James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance.  Tax AnalysisSeveral FMC tax lawyers are on the Editorial Board of the CCH Canadian Tax Reporter, and even more are involved in writing the CCH tax commentary in the Reporter. On March 22, 2011, FMC tax lawyers and CCH participated in the Budget lockup to produce the CCH commentary on the Budget's tax measures. Following the lockup, the document was reviewed by members of FMC’s National Tax Group who also had the opportunity to provide their commentary.On June 6, 2011, the government did not conduct a Budget lockup, but instead made the Budget documents available at 4 p.m. Members of FMC's National Tax Group and CCH reviewed both the first and second Budget documents to provide updated and complete commentary. To view the Resolutions and CCH editorial commentary, please click here.Federal Budget Documents       For complete June 6 Budget documents, please click here. For complete March 22 Budget documents, please click here.Read more by clicking on the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0611_Focus_On_Tax_Federal_Budget_2011.aspxMon, 06 Jun 2011 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0611_Focus_On_Tax_Federal_Budget_2011.aspx