Source: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2017/proposed-foreign-merger-rollovers-rules/
Timestamp: 2018-12-19 10:00:44
Document Index: 114438425

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 14']

Proposed foreign merger rollovers rules | Gowling WLG
On October 27, 2017, under Bill C-63, the Department of Finance released proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act (Canada) ("ITA") introducing a new elective rule allowing non-residents tax-deferred rollover treatment on dispositions of certain taxable Canadian property ("TCP") in a foreign merger. The proposed amendments under Bill C-63 are slightly broader than the amendments on foreign mergers that were first introduced by the Government on September 16, 2016 ("2016 Proposals"). The qualifying TCP that were initially covered by the 2016 Proposals were limited to shares of a taxable Canadian corporation. After consultations with the tax community[1], the new proposals have expanded qualifying TCP to include a share in any corporation, an interest in a partnership and an interest in a trust. This is welcome news to those foreign mergers taking place in a country which does not have a tax treaty with Canada with deferral provisions that allow for the Canadian tax implications arising on such mergers to be deferred.
Ignoring the Canadian foreign affiliate rules[2], the Canadian tax system has never allowed for rollover treatment on dispositions of TCP by a non-resident of Canada to another non-resident of Canada. This was even the case in scenarios involving foreign corporate reorganizations, including foreign mergers, that were completely carried out on a tax deferred basis in the foreign jurisdiction. Generally speaking, rollover treatment on dispositions of TCP by a non-resident generally only occurred in cases where the non-resident was transferring the TCP to a taxable Canadian corporation and made an election under section 85 of the ITA for rollover treatment. An exception to this arose, however, in cases where there was a special deferral provision in a tax treaty that allowed the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"), through the Canadian competent authority, to defer the gains in order to avoid potential double tax (see discussion below under the heading "Treaty Deferral Provisions"). However, in the absence of an agreement by the Canadian competent authority under a Treaty Deferral Provision, non-residents of Canada disposing of TCP to another non-resident entity were generally subject to tax in Canada if gains were realized on that transaction.
Subject to subsections 87(4) and (8) of the ITA, the Canadian tax treatment of a foreign amalgamation or merger will be determined substantially by the legal consequences flowing from the corporate laws under which the predecessor corporations are amalgamated or merged. The CRA has had a long standing position that where the applicable corporate law provides that the predecessor corporations involved in the amalgamation or merger cease to exist and a new corporation is formed on the amalgamation or merger, the predecessor corporations, subject to an overriding provision in the ITA, generally will be considered to have disposed of any property held immediately before the amalgamation or merger. Where, however, the applicable corporate law is of a "continuation type" as described in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in The Queen v. Black and Decker Manu. Co. Limited, the predecessor corporations generally will not be considered to have disposed of any assets held immediately before the amalgamation or merger. For example, in the case of a foreign "absorptive merger" (in which one corporation ceases to exist upon merging with and into a "surviving" corporation), the non-surviving predecessor foreign corporation could be considered to dispose of its property to the surviving foreign corporation.
The primary purpose of an income tax treaty is to avoid double taxation. One common cause of juridical double taxation is where there are timing differences between the income recognition rules under the tax laws of two Contracting States. The OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on CapITAl[4] (the "OECD Treaty Model") addresses these timing mismatches by attempting to put some obligation on Resident States to rectify the double tax by providing relief regardless of when the tax is levied by the Source State.[5] The OECD Treaty Model does not, however, go so far as to require either a Resident State or a Source State to defer the recognition of that income at the first incidence of taxation in an attempt to coordinate both States' rules as a means of avoiding double tax. Deferral of a Contracting State's immediate right to tax would generally require a clear provision, that is, a Treaty Deferral Provision, empowering that State to defer recognition of the profit, income or gain otherwise taxable immediately under its domestic laws. Canada's network of tax treaties has incorporated several of these Treaty Deferral Provisions[6] allowing the competent authority of each state, at its sole discretion, to defer income realized upon certain corporate reorganizations in order to avoid potential double taxation.
A Treaty Deferral Provision attempts to address the potential for double taxation in the context of a tax-free corporate (or other organization) reorganization in one State ("Resident State") when the assets, that are the subject of the corporate restructuring, are not all located within that State and the State of situs of the non-domestically located assets considers those assets to have been alienated as a result of the reorganization and taxes the profit, gain or income therefrom. In the context where Canada is the State of situs of the non-domestically located assets, upon a request received by the acquirer of such assets, the Canadian Competent Authority may enter into an agreement with the acquirer to defer the recognition of the profit, gain or income in accordance with the interaction of the Treaty Deferral Provision and section 115.1 of the ITA. Relief from double taxation would then be achieved through a deferral of taxation in Canada. The deferral, however, is not automatic and is granted at the "sole" discretion of the Competent Authority of that State.
Paragraphs 72 to 85 of Information Circular 71-­17R5, Guidance on Competent Authority Assistance Under Canada's Tax Conventions[7] ("Circular"), summarize the Canadian Competent Authority's policies regarding agreements made pursuant to the Canada-U.S. Treaty Deferral Provision (i.e. Article XIII(8) of the Canada-U.S. Treaty). These guidelines can generally be relied upon with respect to other Treaty Deferral Provisions in Canada's treaty network.
[3] However, in light of the recent decision in Sifto Canada Corp. v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 37, and more particularly the comments made by the court in the form of obiter regarding section 115.1 of the ITA, it is not clear whether the Canadian competent authority was correct in determining that it did not have the powers to enter into rollover provisions in the absence of a specific Treaty Deferral Provision. For further information on this, please refer to the author's article entitled The Sifto Decision – Is the Minister Bound by MAP Settlements? available on the Gowling WLG website.
[6] For example, in addition to Article XIII(8) of the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention, see Canada's tax treaties with Estonia, (art 13, para 5), Finland (art 13, para 6), Germany (art 13, para 5), Hungary (art 13, para 5), Iceland (art 13, para 5), Korea (art 13, para 9), Latvia (art 13, para 5), Lithuania (art 13, para 5), Luxembourg (art 13, para 6), Mongolia (art 13, para 5), Netherlands (art 13, para 6), Norway (art 13, para 9), Peru (art 13, para 5), Switzerland (art 13, para 5), Tanzania (art 13, para 6), Venezuela (art 13, para 8) and Zimbabwe (art 14, para 6).