Effective. Accessible. Responsive
The following article on section 160 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) appeared in the latest edition of the Hamilton Law Association Law Journal. It is an expanded version of one of my posts from August.
Section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) permits the CRA to assess “at any time” a taxpayer who receives property for inadequate consideration from a non-arm’s length tax debtor.
As readers of this blog know, the Ontario Business Corporations Act was amended late last year to provide that
The articles [of a Corporation] may provide that two or more classes of shares or two or more series within a class of shares may have the same rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions.
Robin MacKnight, writing in the Canadian Tax Foundation’s Tax for the Owner-Manager in July, pointed out that:
At the 2007 STEP National Conference, the CRA was asked how it would interpret this change in the context of the attribution and income-splitting rules. Not surprisingly, its response was that tax consequences depend on more than just a name, and it would not necessarily recognize a distinction between classes of shares on that basis alone.
At some point, I will write a longer piece on requirements to pay, but for now I will rest content with pointing to Encan Construction Ltd v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 579, as an example of the heavy burden they can impose on a taxpayer.
In a post I wrote in the spring, I summarized briefly Desormiers c. Lalumière, 2006 QCCS 2357, a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, which seemed to call into question the effectiveness of price adjustment clauses.