Fertility Law – Frequently Asked Questions
As fertility law practitioners in this rapidly developing field of law, we often find ourselves faced with some recurring questions. As such, we have drafted this blog po…
Read moreBy Parveen Karsan & Zahra Tahsili
The federal government has expanded the mandatory disclosure rules in the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) by making changes to the reportable transaction rules and introducing a new notifiable transaction regime, as outlined in this Memorandum. Notifiable transactions differ from reportable transactions in that notifiable transactions are those that the Minister of National Revenue specifically designates as requiring reporting, whereas reportable transactions require reporting if certain specified criteria are met.
The primary objective of these amendments is to promote transparency and compliance in tax-related matters. To achieve this goal, the amendments impose specific obligations on taxpayers, advisors, and promoters to provide comprehensive information returns regarding reportable and notifiable transactions to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
The proposed changes have undergone significant legislative progress, with draft legislation being presented on February 4, 2022, and further developments occurring since August 9, 2022. The bill, known as Bill C-47, received Royal Assent on June 22, 2023, transforming the rules in their current form into law.
A “reportable transaction” refers to an avoidance transaction that is entered into by or for the benefit of a person. This includes not only the specific avoidance transaction but also any transaction that is part of a series of transactions (referred hereto as “transaction or series”) that consists of the avoidance transaction.
The mandatory disclosure rules in respect of reportable transactions apply when two criteria are satisfied:
a) A transaction or series has one of three specified hallmarks, which will be explained in further detail later in the memorandum; and
b) It can reasonably be concluded that one of the main purposes of entering into the transaction or series of transactions is to obtain a tax benefit.
Before the introduction of changes to the reportable transaction rules, taxpayers were obligated to report transactions that meet the criteria of an “avoidance transaction” as defined in section 245 of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).1 Under this definition, a transaction or series would not be deemed an avoidance transaction if it could be reasonably demonstrated that it was primarily undertaken or arranged for bona fide purposes other than obtaining the tax benefit.
According to the new regime, an “avoidance transaction” is defined as a transaction that may reasonably be considered to have as one of its main purposes, or one of the main purposes of a series of transactions of which it is a part, to obtain a tax benefit. This definition establishes a lower threshold compared to the former definition modelled in the GAAR. This lower threshold implies that a transaction could be classified as an avoidance transaction even if it has additional legitimate purposes or motivations. Therefore, under the new reportable transaction rules, it is important to note that there is no requirement for a transaction to be abusive.
When discussing the avoidance transaction definition, the Department of Finance made the following statement in the explanatory notes to the April 2023 Notice of Ways and Means Motion (the “Explanatory Notes”):
“Normal commercial transactions that do not pose an increased risk of abuse, in and of themselves, are not intended to result in a reporting obligation under these rules.”2
That said, the language of the definition of “avoidance transaction” may catch normal commercial transactions. Whether such transactions pose an increased risk of abuse may be a matter of some controversy.
As discussed, one of the criteria for determining whether a transaction or series is reportable is the presence of specific hallmarks. Conversely, if none of the three generic hallmarks, as defined below, are present in a transaction or series, there is no legislative requirement to report it, even if it can be reasonably concluded that one of the main purposes of entering into the transaction or series is to obtain a tax benefit. According to the CRA Guidance released on July 5, 2023 (the “CRA Guidance”), transactions such as estate freezes, debt restructuring, loss consolidation arrangements, shareholder loan repayments, purification transactions, claiming of the capital gain exemption, divisive reorganizations and foreign exchange swaps may not trigger a reporting requirement, though they are typically driven by a desire to obtain tax benefit. This list is not exhaustive.3
The first hallmark pertains to the circumstances where an advisor or promoter is entitled to receive a fee based on the presence of a tax benefit. This hallmark encompasses the following situations:
a) computation of fee is based (to any extent) on the amount of a tax benefit that could result;
b) entitlement to fee contingent upon the obtaining of, or failure to obtain, a tax benefit; or
c) the fee is attributable to the number of persons who
i) enter into the avoidance transaction or
ii) have been provided access to advice or opinion given by the advisor or promoter regarding tax consequences.
According to the CRA Guidance and the Explanatory Notes, the following activities do not trigger the contingent fee hallmark and as a result, are not reportable to the extent the transaction is limited to the circumstances below:
a) A fee for the claiming of the scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) tax credits;
b) A fee for the preparation of an annual income tax return that results in a taxpayer obtaining a refund of tax, including entitlement to personal tax credits, such as the disability tax credit or refundable tax credits, the Canada child benefit, the GST/HST credit or the Canada workers benefit;
c) Fees based on the numbers of preparations of and filings of income tax elections in respect of a transaction or series of transactions;
d) In certain circumstances, a firm may bill a fee attributable to the number of taxpayers that participate in or have been provided access to the advice given on the tax consequences of the transaction. It is important to note that the fees must only be contingent on the number of returns or elections prepared, rather than the attainment of a tax benefit. A few examples are outlined below:
e) Value-billing arrangements by professionals such as lawyers and accountants, where a fee is agreed to at the time of billing and is based on criteria other than the value of the tax benefit resulting from the transaction or series, which might include:
f) Contingent tax litigation fee arrangement in relation to an appeal of a tax assessment in respect of a tax benefit from a completed transaction or series.5 However, a reporting obligation would be expected to arise for a litigator in relation to a contingent litigation fee arrangement that is put in place with a taxpayer, advisor or promoter in respect of a transaction or series prior to the completion of the transaction or series; and
g) Billing practices and circumstances of an advisor in respect of an avoidance transaction involving the collection of a standard fee (generally available to the public under normal commercial terms and in comparable circumstances) by a financial institution:
On this basis, no reporting obligation would generally arise for a financial institution that collects a standard fee in relation to the provision of an ordinary financial account that is broadly offered in a normal commercial or investment context in which parties deal with each other at arm’s length and act prudently, knowledgeably and willingly.
It should be noted that exclusion may not apply where the financial institution can reasonably be expected to know that the financial account will be used in a reportable transaction to their client.6
This applies when an advisor or promoter obtains “confidential protection” regarding an avoidance transaction. “Confidential protection” means anything that prohibits the disclosure to any person or to the Minister of National Revenue (“MNR”) of the details or structure of the transaction.
It is important to note that confidential protection does not include provisions that solely disclaim or restrict an advisor’s liability if the disclosure of transaction details or structure is not prohibited.
Furthermore, the requirement for confidential protection to be applicable must relate to the tax treatment of the avoidance transaction.
It may be advisable for lawyers to consider including “notwithstanding language” in their engagement or retainer letters to clarify that any confidentiality clauses contained within their documents should not be interpreted as providing confidential protection under the reportable transaction rules. This issue is elaborated on in detail in the “Recommendations” section of this Memorandum.
The CRA Guidance clarifies that the protection of trade secrets unrelated to tax matters does not trigger a reporting obligation.
The third hallmark applies when a taxpayer or certain other individuals, including promoters or advisers, receive contractual protection if the transaction in question fails to achieve the intended tax benefit. It pertains to transactions that involve insurance or other forms of protection, including an indemnity, compensation or guarantee that:
a) protects against a failure of the transaction or series to achieve any tax benefit; or
b) pays for or reimburses expenses, fees, taxes, interests, penalties, or any other costs that may arise during a dispute related to a tax benefit.
According to the CRA Guidance and the Explanatory Notes, the below-listed matters would not give rise to a reporting requirement:
a) Standard professional liability insurance of a tax practitioner.
b) Standard representations, warranties and guarantees between a vendor and purchaser, as well as traditional representations and warranties insurance policies, that are generally obtained in the ordinary commercial context of mergers and acquisitions transactions to protect a purchaser from pre-sale liabilities (including tax liabilities).7 It is important to note that the Explanatory Notes do not explicitly mention other types of commercial transactions. Therefore, this hallmark may still be applicable where agreements drafted in respect of other commercial transactions, contain tax indemnities and the like.
c) Insurance protection that is an integral part of a business sale agreement between persons acting at arm’s length, including the sale or transfer of corporations, partnerships, or trusts, under certain conditions. Specifically, for this exclusion to apply, the insurance or protection must be intended to ensure that the purchase price takes into account the liabilities of the business immediately prior to the sale. Additionally, the insurance or protection should primarily serve purposes other than achieving any tax benefit. Here are a few examples illustrating this scenario:
It should be noted that this exception does not apply to any other forms of insurance or protections that may be obtained to cover specific identified tax risks, such as tax liability insurance policies used in avoidance transactions. The existence of such insurance may often be an indication of aggressive tax planning.
d) Standard price adjustment clauses, as discussed in the Income Tax Folio S4-F3-C1.8
e) Obtaining an advance income tax ruling from the CRA or other tax administrations on non-Canadian tax issues, by a person seeking a tax benefit from an avoidance transaction or series of transactions involving an avoidance transaction.
f) Contingent litigation fee arrangement in relation to an appeal of a tax assessment by a lawyer in respect of a tax benefit from a completed transaction or series.
g) In the course of the establishment of a self-directed RRSP with a Canadian Bank, the RRSP plan document includes a Tax Indemnity, where the client agrees to indemnify the Trustee (the subsidiary of the Canadian Bank which agrees to act as the plan trustee) if the RRSP plan faces tax consequences, such as holding a non-qualified investment. Despite the RRSP being potentially considered an avoidance transaction, the Tax Indemnity is not regarded as contractual protection since it aligns with standard market practices and applies in a regular commercial or investment context.
Disclosure under the reportable transaction regime is not required for the acquisition of a tax shelter or the issuance of a flow-through share where the appropriate information return has been filed. Please consult with your tax advisor.
According to the reportable transaction rules, several parties have an obligation to file information returns with the appropriate authorities. These include:
a) Every person for whom a tax benefit results or is expected to result from the reportable transaction or series;
b) Advisors and promoters who are entitled to a fee in respect of the reportable transaction or series; and
c) Every person who is not dealing at arm’s length with the advisors or promoters, and is entitled to a fee in respect of the transaction or series.
It is important to note that clerical or secretarial services are excluded from the filing obligation. Additionally, it is worth emphasizing that each obligated person is responsible for fulfilling their individual reporting obligations.
In the context of reportable transactions, an advisor refers to any person who provides, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatever:
to another person (including any person who enters into the transaction for the benefit of another person).
A promoter, in respect of a transaction or series, means each person who
a) promotes or sells (whether as principal or agent and whether directly or indirectly) an arrangement, plan or scheme (referred to as an “arrangement”), if it may reasonably be considered that the arrangement includes or relates to the transaction or series;
b) makes a statement or representation (whether as principal or agent and whether directly or indirectly) that a tax benefit could result from an arrangement, if it may reasonably be considered that
ii) the statement or representation was made in furtherance of the promoting or selling of the arrangement, and
iii) the arrangement includes or relates to the transaction or series; or
c) accepts (whether as principal or agent and whether directly or indirectly) consideration in respect of an arrangement referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above.
Taxpayers, advisors, and promoters must file information about reportable transactions within 90 days of the earlier of:
a) the date on which the person becomes contractually obligated to enter into the transaction; and
b) the date on which the person actually enters into the transaction.
The revised rules governing reportable transactions are applicable to transactions or series that occur after royal assent, which took place on June 22, 2023. This means that if an individual enters into a contract for a reportable transaction on June 1, 2023, but the actual transaction occurs on June 30, they are still obligated to report it, and the 90-day reporting period will begin on June 30, 2023. Similarly, if a person is involved in a series of transactions that span the date of royal assent, the reporting requirement will be triggered by the first reportable transaction entered into after the date of royal assent.
9
Reportable transactions are required to be disclosed to the CRA in the prescribed form, RC312 Reportable Transaction and Notifiable Transaction Information Return.
Under the new regime, there is an obligation to report transactions or series that are designated as “notifiable” transactions as well as transactions that are “substantially similar” to notifiable transactions. The term “substantially similar” is defined as encompassing transactions or series that are expected to result in “the same or similar types of tax consequences” and are “either factually similar or based on the same or similar tax strategy”. The legislation expressly states that “substantially similar” should be “interpreted broadly in favour of disclosure”.10
Transactions or series are designated by the Minister of National Revenue (with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance) in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate. According to a Backgrounder released on February 4, 2022,11 and the CRA Guidance, notifiable transactions would include both transactions that the CRA has found to be abusive, and transactions identified as transactions of interest (i.e., where more information is required to determine if a transaction is abusive). Notifiable transactions will be listed on a CRA web page.
The Backgrounder sets out the following six sample notifiable transactions:
1) Manipulating Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation status to avoid anti-deferral rules applicable to investment income;
2) Engaging in straddle loss creation transactions using a partnership;
3) Avoidance of deemed disposal of trust property;
4) Manipulation of bankrupt status to reduce a forgiven amount in respect of a commercial obligation;
5) Reliance on purpose tests in section 256.1 of ITA to avoid a deemed acquisition of control; and
6) Utilizing back-to-back arrangements involving lending, rents, royalties, and other transactions.12
Similar to the new reportable rules, the following parties have the obligation to file information returns:
a) Every person for whom a tax benefit results, or for whom a tax benefit is expected to result based on the person’s tax treatment of the notifiable transaction, from the notifiable transaction or series;
b) Every person who enters into a notifiable transaction for the benefit of a person described in (a);
c) Every advisor or promoter in respect of the notifiable transaction; and
d) Every person not dealing at arm’s length with an advisor or promoter in respect of the notifiable transaction and who is or was entitled to a fee in respect of the notifiable transaction.
As with the reportable transaction rules, there is no filing requirement if a person provides clerical or secretarial services only.
Under the notifiable transaction rules, the definition of an advisor includes any person who provides any assistance or advice with respect to creating, developing, planning, organizing or implementing the notifiable transaction to another person. Additionally, anyone who provides assistance or advice to any promoter or any other advisor in respect of the transaction is an advisor.
The definition of promotor with respect to the notifiable transaction rules is the same as the definition of promoter for the reportable transactions rules.
It is important to highlight that, unlike the reportable transaction rules, an advisor or promoter does not necessarily need to be entitled to a fee to be caught by the notifiable transaction rules. There can be more than one advisor in respect of a notifiable transaction or series, each of whom may be subject to a filing obligation. However, a person that provides advice or representation in respect of an audit or tax dispute is excluded from the definition of an advisor or promoter, unless they are otherwise involved in the notifiable transaction.
Taxpayers, advisors, and promoters must file information returns within 90 days of the earlier of the date on which the person becomes contractually obligated to enter into the notifiable transaction and the day on which the person enters into the notifiable transaction.
The prescribed form for disclosing the notifiable to the CRA is RC312 Reportable Transaction and Notifiable Transaction Information Return. The relevant person would indicate on Form 312 that the transaction is a reportable transaction, a notifiable transaction or both. For notifiable transactions, the relevant person has to complete Part 3, “Notifiable transaction” and then continue with Part 5, “Penalty” of the form.13
Under the filing requirements for notifiable transactions, a separate information return is required for each transaction within a series. However, in some cases, a single information return that provides details of every transaction within the series may be sufficient.
Like the reportable transaction regime, each person who is affected by the notifiable transaction is required to file an information return. However, in cases where an employer or partnership is required to file an information return, it is deemed to have been filed by each employee or partner in respect of the transaction.
For taxpayers entering into a transaction for their own benefit, a defence against penalties imposed for failure to comply with reporting requirements may be available, if they have exercised a degree of care, diligence, and skill in determining whether the transaction qualifies as a reportable or notifiable transaction. This exemption recognizes that if a person has taken reasonable measures to assess the nature of the transaction and has acted in a manner that a reasonably prudent person would in comparable circumstances, there is no obligation to file an information return. For example, this defence may be available where the taxpayer seeks the opinion of their advisors regarding potential reporting obligations and is informed by the advisors that there is no requirement to file.
For advisors, promoters, or persons not at arm’s length with advisors or promoters who are entitled to a fee, the due diligence defence may be available where it can be established that the person does not know or should not reasonably be expected to know that the transaction qualifies as a reportable or notifiable transaction.
The determination of what a person should “reasonably be expected to know” is assessed objectively, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. It does not rely on the person’s subjective intention or knowledge alone. The question is whether a reasonable person, in the same position and having the same knowledge and information, would be aware that the transaction meets the criteria for being considered a reportable or notifiable transaction.
Advisors who provide ancillary services or have narrow mandates may not be expected to know that a transaction is a reportable or notifiable transaction, depending on the nature of their involvement and expertise. This applies particularly to members of a team with limited involvement or knowledge of the transaction or series, such as junior employees with specific and focused roles.
Failure to report or late filing of a reportable or notifiable transaction can result in penalties imposed on taxpayers. The specific penalties are as follows:
b) For taxpayers:
i) $500 per week for each failure to report a reportable or notifiable transaction, up to the greater of $25,000 and 25% of the tax benefit, or
ii) for a corporation with assets having a total carrying value of $50 million or more for its last taxation year that ends prior to the day on which the information return is required to be filed: a penalty of $2,000 per week for each failure to report a reportable or notifiable transaction, up to the greater of $100,000 and 25% of the tax benefit.
c) For advisors, promoters or persons not at arm’s length with advisors or promoters who are entitled to a fee: a total of
i) 100% of the fees charged by that person in respect of the reportable or notifiable transaction,
ii) $10,000, and
iii) $1,000 per day that the person fails to report the reportable or notifiable transaction, up to a maximum of $100,000.
In order to avoid imposing two sets of penalties upon a person who both 1) enters into a reportable or notifiable transaction for the benefit of another person, and 2) is a person who does not deal at arm’s length with an advisor or promoter in respect of the reportable or notifiable transaction and is entitled to a fee, the legislation provides that such a person would be subject only to the greater of these two penalties.
It is unclear whether professional liability insurance would cover the above penalties. We would recommend that affected parties clarify this with their insurance providers.
It should be noted that when required filings for a notifiable transaction are not made, the Minister has the authority to take certain additional measures, which may include denying tax benefits that could result from the notifiable transaction. Moreover, the Minister can reassess a participant in a notifiable transaction outside of the normal reassessment period for a taxation year in respect of the transaction.
According to the CRA Guidance and the relevant provisions, the information is not required to be disclosed if it is reasonable to believe that the information is subject to solicitor-client privilege.14
1. As so many transactions could potentially be in play due to these new rules, it is prudent to review and update the firm’s Engagement Letters, Closing Agenda, Transaction Checklists and Reporting Letters.
2. A step may be added to the Closing Agenda and Transaction Checklists to include a review of the transaction for possible reporting requirements.
3. As the CRA announces designated transactions, taxpayers must promptly respond to meet their reporting obligations. This means identifying any planned and pending transactions that fall under these rules and providing the necessary information within 90 days of entering into these transactions.
4. Advisors participating in creating, planning, or implementing a reportable or notifiable transaction should understand their primary duty to uphold the confidentiality of their clients’ information. If the advisor is required by law to disclose confidential information, the advisor must communicate this to the client in writing, informing them of the potential disclosure to the CRA. The client should be fully informed about the nature of the information that might be disclosed, the circumstances under which it may happen, and the potential risks associated with such disclosure.
—
[1] Section 245(3): An avoidance transaction means any transaction
(a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or
(b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit.
[2] M.P. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, “Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act and Other Legislation”, published by The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., April 2023, at p 71, available at: https://fin.canada.ca/drleg-apl/2023/nwmm-amvm-0423-eng.html.
[3] Canada Revenue Agency, “Mandatory disclosure rules – Guidance” (July 05, 2023 – Last modified: July 25, 2023), available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/compliance/mandatory-disclosure-rules-overview/guidance-document.html.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Supra Note 2 at p. 76.
[7] Ibid at p. 73.
[8] The CRA has previously characterized the price adjustment clauses as provisions that can potentially prevent adverse tax consequences (in other words, to protect against the failure to achieve a tax benefit).
[9] Supra Note 3.
[10] Department of Finance, “Legislative proposals relating to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (Budget 2022 and other proposals)” (October 10, 2020), available at: https://fin.canada.ca/drleg-apl/2022/ita-lir-0822-l-2-eng.html.
[11] Department of Finance, “Income Tax Mandatory Disclosure Rules Consultation: Sample Notifiable Transactions” (February 04, 2022), available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2022/02/income-tax-mandatory-disclosure-rules-consultationsample-notifiable-transactions.html.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Supra Note 3.
[14] Supra Note 3.
As fertility law practitioners in this rapidly developing field of law, we often find ourselves faced with some recurring questions. As such, we have drafted this blog po…
Read moreWe are excited to announce Parveen Karsan, Sarando Matheos, and Kirk Wirsig have been selected for inclusion in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada®.
Read moreWhen you are disabled due to an injury or an illness, the last thing you should have to deal with is a battle with an insurance company over the interpretation of complex…
Read more