Canada vs Bank of Nova Scotia, October 2021, Tax Court, Case No. 2021 TCC 70

Posted on | By Courts of Canada | No comments
Category: Legality - Legitimacy - Constitutional | Tag: , , ,
« | »

In 2013 and 2014, the Canadian tax authorities conducted the Transfer Pricing Audit of Bank of Nova Scotia.

Prior to issuing tax assessment letters for FY 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Bank entered into a settlement agreement with the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the Transfer Pricing Audit.

The settlement agreement provided for the Minister to reassess the Bank to include certain amounts in its income as transfer pricing adjustments in its 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Taxation Years. In this regard, the agreement was to result in an increase of the Bank’s taxable income for the 2006 Taxation Year of $54,916,616.

The Bank then wrote to the Minister to carry back $54,000,000 of non-capital loss that arose in the Bank’s taxation year ended October 31, 2008 to its 2006 Taxation Year in order to offset the pending $54,916,616 Transfer Pricing Adjustment.

The Minister did so and as part of the reassessment, interest was calculated based on the date of the written request (i.e. March 12, 2015).

The Bank of Nova Scotia was of the opinion that the interest should have been calculated based on the filing date of the loss year return (i.e. April 28, 2009).

The Tax Court’s decision

The Tax Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal.

“The wording of the provision is unambiguous and when applied to the present circumstances, the correct deemed payment date is April 11, 2015 which is 30 days after March 12, 2015, i.e. based on subparagraph 161(7)(b)(iv). For the purposes of the refund interest, the correct deemed overpayment date is also April 11, 2015, based on paragraph 164(5)(l). The Minister’s error in using March 12, 2015 for her calculation rather than April 11, 2015, resulted in 30 days’ less interest being assessed and this Court cannot put the taxpayer in a worse position”

 

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 24 86. Zhu is a company engaged in software development consulting. In the past Zhu has developed software supporting ATM transactions for client Bank A. In the process of doing so, Zhu created and retained an interest in proprietary copyrighted software code that is potentially suitable for use by other similarly...
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.22 A particularly relevant factor for commodity transactions determined by reference to the quoted price is the pricing date, which refers to the specific time, date or time period (e.g. a specified range of dates over which an average price is determined) selected by the parties to determine the price for...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 13 42. The facts in this example are the same as those set out in Example 10 with the following additions: At the end of Year 3, Primair stops manufacturing watches and contracts with a third party to manufacture them on its behalf. As a result, Company S will import unbranded...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.187 The facts relating to S’s credit standing and borrowing power are identical to those in the preceding example. S borrows EUR 50 million from Bank A. The functional analysis suggests that Bank A would lend to S at an interest rate applicable to A rated borrowers without any formal guarantee....
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.114 With no physical transfers of funds, the transactional costs of operating a notional pool are likely to be less than transactional costs of operating a physical pool. Functions carried out by the bank would be accounted for in the charges or interest rate of the bank. With minimal functions carried...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.135 Under the cash management services agreement the bank makes any transfers necessary to meet the target balance for each pool participant with any net surplus deposited by M or any net overdrawn position being met by the bank lending to M. The facility that M may draw on is guaranteed...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 6 14. In Year 1, a multinational group comprised of Company A (a country A corporation) and Company B (a country B corporation) decides to develop an intangible, which is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record and its experienced research and development staff....
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.29 The mutual agreement procedure is a well-established means through which tax administrations consult to resolve disputes regarding the application of double tax conventions. This procedure, described and authorised by Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, can be used to eliminate double taxation that could arise from a transfer...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 12 39. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9 with the following additions: By the end of Year 3, the R brand is successfully established in the country Y market and Primair and Company S renegotiate their earlier agreement and enter into a new long-term licensing...
TPG2022 Chapter IV Annex II paragraph 80 When a MAP APA is cancelled the date of cancellation will be determined by the nature of the event that led to the cancellation. This may be a specific date, for example if the event giving rise to the cancellation was a material change in tax law (although the MAP...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *