Canada vs Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc., April 2020, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2020 FCA 79

Posted on | By Courts of Canada | 2 Comments
Category: Financial Transactions, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: , ,
« | »

In the case of Canadian grocery chain Loblaw, the Canadian Tax Court in 2018 found that using an offshore banking affiliate in a low tax jurisdiction – Barbados – to manage the groups investments did not constitute tax avoidance.

However, the Tax Court’s interpretation of a technical provision in the Canadian legislation had the consequence that Loblaw would nonetheless have to pay $368 million in taxes and penalties.

This decision was later overturned by the Canadian Court of Appeal where a judgement in favor of Loblaw was delivered.

 

Canada vs Loblaw April 2020 SC

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.20 There are a number of different types of penalties that tax jurisdictions have adopted. Penalties can involve either civil or criminal sanctions – criminal penalties are virtually always reserved for cases of very significant fraud, and they usually carry a very high burden of proof for the party asserting the...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.28 Since penalties are only one of many administrative and procedural aspects of a tax system, it is difficult to conclude whether a particular penalty is fair or not without considering the other aspects of the tax system. Nonetheless, OECD member countries agree that the following conclusions can be drawn regardless...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.19 Care should be taken in comparing different national penalty practices and policies with one another. First, any comparison needs to take into account that there may be different names used in the various countries for penalties that accomplish the same purposes. Second, the overall compliance measures of an OECD member...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 4 17. Company A and Company B are members of an MNE group and decide to undertake the development of an intangible through a CCA. The intangible is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record and its experienced research and development staff. Company A...
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 VIII paragraph 8.38 In the example in paragraph 8.33, the participants, Companies A and B, expect to benefit from the CCA in the ratio 75:25. In the first year the value of their pre-existing contributions is 10 million for Company A and 6 million for Company B. As a result, a net balancing...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.23 Civil monetary penalties for tax understatement are frequently triggered by one or more of the following: an understatement of tax liability exceeding a threshold amount, negligence of the taxpayer, or wilful intent to evade tax (and also fraud, although fraud can trigger much more serious criminal penalties). Many OECD member...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.18 Penalties are most often directed toward providing disincentives for non-compliance, where the compliance at issue may relate to procedural requirements such as providing necessary information or filing returns, or to the substantive determination of tax liability. Penalties are generally designed to make tax underpayments and other types of non-compliance more...

2 comments on Canada vs Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc., April 2020, Federal Court of Appeal, Case No 2020 FCA 79

  2. You can download the pdf’s by clicking the icon in top showing a sheet of paper with an arrow pointing down.

Leave a Reply

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