What kinds of cases are you looking for?   
< Previous Case Next Case >

Income tax — general anti-avoidance rule

A public company worked out a restructuring plan when it was in financial difficulty. As part of the restructuring, it ended up owning a subsidiary that held some of the company's convertible debentures, which were then converted into shares.

Several years later, Revenue Canada audited the transaction and proposed a reassessment of over $2 million. The auditor claimed that there was an adverse tax consequence resulting from the subsidiary holding shares in its parent in contravention of the Business Corporations Act (BCA). The auditor also proposed to apply the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR). As per Departmental policy, he had already obtained the approval of the GAAR Committee at headquarters in Ottawa to issue a GAAR assessment.

The client's accountants, one of the "Big Six" firms, negotiated with the auditor for a year and were unable to get the proposed assessment withdrawn. At this point the client came to me.

I researched the issue and wrote a single 19-page letter to Revenue Canada. In the letter I thoroughly analyzed the technical basis for the reassessment, and showed that the auditor's reasoning was flawed (specifically, that the possible contravention of the BCA did not void the transaction).

I also showed that the GAAR should not apply because tax avoidance was not a motive at the time of the transaction. To support this I obtained minutes of meetings, memos, affidavits and other supporting material showing that the company was not considering the tax effects when it worked out the restructuring plan.

The auditor agreed on both issues, and withdrew the proposed reassessment.

Problem vanished!

(1997)