Quarterly legal newsletter intended for accounting, management, and finance professionals, Number 22

December 1, 2013

Download this publication

CONTENTS

Requirements for ITC and ITR claims: A judgment of the Court of Québec sets the record straight
Restrictive covenants transactional context vs. employment context
Patrimony protection and transmission liquidator of a succession: what do you do?
The Bagtech case, or the impact of a unanimous shareholder agreement on the status of canadian-controlled private corporation

REQUIREMENTS FOR ITC AND ITR CLAIMS: A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF QUÉBEC SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Philippe Asselin and Jean-Philippe Latreille

In the past few years, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”) has acted aggressively towards any taxpayers whom it suspects of being involved in a “false invoicing scheme”. However, a crack seems to have appeared in the position generally held by the ARQ on this issue as a result of a recent decision by the Court of Québec in the case of Système intérieur GPBR Inc.

The facts of this case are typical of files of this nature: a building contractor was denied input tax refunds (“ITRs”) it had claimed on the grounds that it did not meet the legal requirements for obtaining them, and because some of its subcontractors turned out to be “suppliers of false invoices”.

Firstly, the Court noted in its judgment that certain documentary requirements set out in the law and regulations must be complied with in order to validly claim ITRs, including, among other things, the obligation to obtain the name of the supplier or intermediary, or the name under which it is doing business, the QST registration number assigned to the supplier or intermediary, the date of the invoice, a sufficient description to identify each supply, etc.

The ARQ maintained that only the names of the suppliers of services having actually performed the work for which ITRs were claimed could appear on the invoices. This argument was dismissed by the Court because the regulatory provisions expressly provide that the name of an intermediary may appear thereon.

In addition, the ARQ claimed that a taxpayer wishing to claim ITRs was subject to numerous additional obligations, in addition to complying with the prescribed regulatory requirements. For example, according to the ARQ, the taxpayer had to confirm the legal existence of the subcontractors in the Enterprise Register of Quebec, verify the validity of their license issued by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, or obtain data from the Commission de la construction du Québec and the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec on the subcontractors’ workforce.

The Court did not accept this claim by the ARQ. Indeed, taxpayers have a right to strictly rely on the statutory provisions in conducting their tax affairs, and it is not the courts’ role to create new rules in this area. Therefore, the courts must not impose requirements relating to ITR claims that are not provided for in the legislation or regulations.

Thus, the Court concluded that the taxpayer had proven its right to the ITRs claimed because it had met the documentary requirements, the services billed for had been truly rendered, and its right had not been affected by the fact that some of its subcontractors subsequently turned out to be “suppliers of false invoices”. On this last point, the Court indicated that the ARQ had adduced no evidence of collusion by the taxpayer with its subcontractors with a view to benefit from this “scheme”. The ARQ has already announced its decision to appeal this case, noting that it does not intend to change the way in which it handles matters of “false invoices”. It therefore appears that the ARQ does not seem to have heard the plea for caution by the Court, which, moreover, noted that a “conviction by association” can have disastrous consequences for a business and its principals. However, this does not mean that taxpayers should necessarily refrain from contesting GST or QST assessments issued by the ARQ in similar circumstances.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS TRANSACTIONAL CONTEXT VS. EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
André Paquette

Why are non-competition or non-solicitation covenants added to contracts? The purpose of inserting so-called “restrictive” covenants in a contract is generally the desire to protect a company’s goodwill either upon the termination of an employment relationship, the termination of a business relationship, or the acquisition of a business. Clearly, the parties’ bargaining power will vary depending on the context: an employee’s bargaining power is usually less and warrants different treatment from the treatment applying to a businessman or woman negotiating the sale of his or her business. In addition, where a business is the subject of an acquisition transaction, the goal of maintaining smooth business operations is a strong factor supporting rules of interpretation that favour the preservation of the goodwill of the business. It is therefore no coincidence that the rules applying to such covenants will depend on the nature of the contract involved.

The Supreme Court of Canada reminded us of this, among other things, in the recent case of Payette v. Guay inc.¹ rendered on September 12, 2013.

In that case, restrictive covenants had been inserted in a contract for the sale of assets pursuant to which Guay Inc. (“Guay”), a company operating a crane leasing business, had acquired the assets of certain companies controlled by a Mr. Yannick Payette (“Payette”) and his partner, in October 2004, for an amount of $26 million. A clause had also been inserted into the contract providing for transitional services by Payette as a consultant for a maximum period of six (6) months following the closing of the transaction, with the option of concluding an employment contract at a later date. Both the transitional services and the employment contract were subsequently implemented.

However, everything changed on August 3, 2009 when Guay dismissed Payette, who joined a firm in competition with Guay, bringing several of Guay’s employees with him!

The Supreme Court first considered the nature of the rules applicable to restrictive covenants contained in a contract for the sale of assets: was it a transactional context or an employment context?

Indeed, the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”) is not insensitive to the reality faced by employees since it provides, in article 2095, that an employer may not invoke a non-competition clause contained in an employment contract if it has dismissed the employee without a serious reason. The C.C.Q. is however silent on the issue with respect to restrictive covenants in a commercial context.

In this case, the Court could not dissociate the restrictive covenants from the contract for the sale of the assets, even in the context of the termination of Payette’s employment, which triggered its application. According to the Court, the reason why the restrictive covenants were agreed upon was the sale of the business and not the employment relationship which followed the closing of the transaction. The result: Payette was not afforded the protection of article 2095 C.C.Q. as an employee of Guay.

The Court therefore interpreted the restrictive covenants in accordance with commercial law and concluded that the dismissal of Payette, whether done with or without sufficient cause, had no effect on the enforceability of the restrictive clause.
________________________________
¹ 2013 SCC 45.

PATRIMONY PROTECTION AND TRANSMISSION LIQUIDATOR OF A SUCCESSION: WHAT DO YOU DO?
Marie-Claude Armstrong

You learn that you have been appointed as liquidator of the succession of a relative or client pursuant to his or her will, or according to the wishes of a majority of his or her heirs.

You can accept or refuse the office of liquidator.

If you refuse to act as liquidator, you are required to execute a document to this effect and inform the successors (the persons who may receive the succession, but have not yet officially accepted it) thereof.

If you accept to act as liquidator, the appointment must be published in the register of personal and movable real rights to publicize the fact that you act as liquidator in order for the beneficiaries and creditors of the deceased or the succession to know who to contact for anything related to the patrimony of the deceased person (article 777 C.C.Q.).

Prior to the transmission of the bequeathed property and the partition of the succession, you are required to perform various administrative duties, including the following:

Will search in the registry of the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the registry of the Barreau du Québec
Acceptance of the office of liquidator
Will probate and communication thereof to the heirs
Obtaining letters of verification (when immovables included in the succession are located in jurisdictions outside Quebec)
Payment of the deceased’s debts
Payment of the funeral arrangements
Collection of revenues and debts
Closing the deceased’s bank accounts and transfer of the balances to the account of the succession
Identification of the investments and transfer in the name of the succession
Continuance of lawsuits (as plaintiff, defendant or impleaded party)
Payment of instalments to tax authorities
Preparation of an inventory of the property of the succession
Submission of an annual account
Alienation of the assets (limited power of disposal in certain cases)
Preparation and filing of the federal and provincial tax returns of the deceased and eventually of the succession
Partition of the family patrimony and the matrimonial regime
Clearance or distribution certificate (to be obtained from tax authorities)
Publication of a notice of closure of the inventory

An holograph will or a will made in the presence of two witnesses must be probated by the Court. A notarial will does not have to probated by the Superior Court of Quebec. Will search certificates must be obtained from the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Barreau du Québec in all cases.

As liquidator, you are required to render an annual account of your administration and a final account at the time of the final distribution of the succession. Any discretionary power, as wide as it can be, does not authorize you to act in a partial manner or to place yourself in a situation of conflict of interests.

It is generally appropriate for the liquidator to have a law professional, an accountant and a tax expert assist him or her when the nature of the property or certain succession issues justify it. The liquidator should also refrain from giving legal, accounting or tax advice to the heirs. He or she should rather encourage them to consult independent experts of their choice.

THE BAGTECH CASE, OR THE IMPACT OF A UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT ON THE STATUS OF CANADIAN-CONTROLLED PRIVATE CORPORATION
Martin Bédard

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Bioartificial Gel Technologies (Bagtech) Inc. (“Bagtech”) has shed new light on the criteria that applies to the concept of control of a corporation and to the effect of a unanimous shareholder agreement (“USA”) in assessing a corporation’s status as a Canadian-controlled private corporation (“CCPC”) under the Income Tax Act (“ITA”).

In that case, Bagtech sought to qualify as a CCPC in order to obtain an additional tax credit of 15% on its research and development expenses, and to make it eligible for a refundable tax credit. In fact, the majority of Bagtech’s shareholders were not residents of Canada.

However, the ITA requires that, in order for a corporation to claim the status of a CCPC, a test of de jure control must be met, namely, the ability to elect a majority of the corporation’s directors. Thus, if each share belonging to non-residents or listed companies were held by one and the same person (the “particular person”), where a corporation is under the de jure control of this person, it would be disqualified.

However, in the case of Bagtech, a USA stipulated that the majority of the directors were to be elected by resident Canadian shareholders.

At first instance, the court found that the particular person was deemed to be a party to the USA, a conclusion which was not called into question on appeal. Then, the Federal Court of Appeal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Duha Printers (Western) Ltd. v. Canada, held that once a shareholders’ agreement qualifies as a USA, all the clauses restricting the power to elect the board of directors are relevant for purposes of determining de jure control of the corporation. As a result, thanks to its USA, Bagtech was able to qualify as a CCPC, even though the majority of its shareholders were non-residents.

Thus, unless legislative measures are introduced to counter the effect of the Bagtech decision, it is possible for a corporation held by a majority of non-residents or a listed company to adopt a USA that would enable it to qualify as a CCPC. By doing so, such a corporation can obtain a number of tax benefits, including the small business deduction, enhanced research and development expenses and credits, and access to the capital gains deduction for Canadian shareholders.

Back to the publications list

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

September 19, 2024

Financing Quebec’s Energy Transition: Unlocking the Potential of Flow-Through Shares

Quebec has set ambitious energy transition and industrial decarbonization targets. The shift to greener practices has to be taken in a context where our energy consumption could rapidly grow under the combined effect of a number of factors, such as the reindustrialization of our economy, population growth, transport electrification and the potential for artificial intelligence to consume vast amounts of energy. Investing in the development of energy infrastructure is therefore critically important, as an abundance of energy is key to economic prosperity. The problem is that public finances are already stretched to the limit with the need to renovate our aging infrastructure, among other things. Encouraging private equity investment is thus vital, and tax incentives can be very effective in this respect. The American example In 2022, the United States passed its Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with the goal of stimulating investment in the renewable energy sector, in particular. More specifically, the IRA altered or created a number of tax credits to encourage private investment.1 Over the past two years, US businesses have announced a total of almost US$276 billion in new investments in clean energy generation and the capturing or elimination of carbon dioxide and other forms of industrial decarbonization, an increase of 34% on the two years previous.2 The IRA is effective in that it takes the respective situations of various energy sector stakeholders into account in a creative, flexible and pragmatic way, especially where taxation is involved. Energy project promoters often have to wait many years for their projects to generate income and profits, even though the banks and other investment funds they solicit financing from can be presumed to be operating profitable businesses. The tax losses that occur in the years during which such projects are designed and built are therefore of little interest to developers, but of immediate interest to investors. And so, a tax equity market has emerged, in which businesses subject to taxes can invest in the shares of entities set up to develop such projects so as to benefit from tax credits and faster depreciation. Typically, the entity that cashes in the investment and develops the project distributes 99% of income, losses and tax credits to investors until a predetermined return is achieved. Once that return is achieved, the investor’s share of the benefits decreases, and the developer has the option of buying out the investor’s residual share. The IRA has transformed how federal clean energy tax credits are monetized, and it is now possible to buy and sell such credits without having to make a long-term investment. For businesses, this new way of doing things is an additional and attractive way to participate in the growing tax credit market.3 In 2023, the volume of the tax equity market for American projects was around US$20 to 21 billion, up about US$18 billion from the previous year.4 It appears that the trend will continue. It is estimated that the value of the current market, which is particularly attractive to banks, is set to double to US$50 billion a year by 2025.5 The equivalent of flow-through shares The Quebec and Canadian tax deductions mechanism that most closely resembles the US tax equity market is probably flow-through shares. Through these, businesses in the mining and renewable energy sectors can transfer their mining exploration expenses and other expenses—specifically designated as eligible—to investors, who can then deduct them from their own taxable incomes.6 These businesses can thus issue shares at a higher price than they would receive for common shares to finance their exploration and development operations. Investors are willing to pay a higher price in return for the tax deductions afforded by the eligible expenses incurred by the issuing businesses, which can amount to a maximum of 120% of the equity invested in the shares.7 Investors can also claim a 15% or 30% federal tax credit. However, because tax incentives cannot be transferred, our mechanism is more rigid than the American one, and it can only be applied to mineral exploration and development expenses and certain specific expenditures related to renewable energy and energy conservation projects, such as electricity generation using renewable sources like wind, solar energy and geothermal energy.8 With ambition and innovation comes the need to take action Quebec could draw inspiration from the IRA to increase the attractiveness of flow-through shares and broaden their scope of application, thereby creating a new tool to finance the energy transition. The renewable energy sector is similar to the mining sector in many respects, not least in terms of the considerable amount of capital required to build the infrastructure needed to operate a mine or energy generation facility. The flow-through share mechanism, which is well-established and popular with investors,9 could be just as successful in our energy transition context. Making such incentives easier to transfer would also drive the emergence of a market similar to the US tax equity market. A number of Québec flagship companies, such as Hydro-Québec,10 Innergex11 and Boralex,12 are also very ambitious when it comes to developing large-scale energy projects. They face major financing challenges, as do those in the industrial decarbonization and infrastructure renewal sectors. Innovation is necessary to meet these challenges and make the transition to a more sustainable, but just as prosperous, world, and to do so in good time.13 Link Rhodium Group and MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Clean Investment Monitor, link Brandon Hill, How to take advantage of tax credit transferability though the Inflation Reduction Act, Thomson Reuters Institute, April 16, 2024, link Allison Good, Renewables project finance to keep pace in 2024, but tax equity rule looms, S&P Global, January 12, 2024, link Lesley Hunter and Mason Vliet, The Risk Profile of Renewable Energy Tax Equity Investments, American Council on Renewable Energy, December 2023, link Link, page in French only Link Link Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, Flow-through shares & the mineral exploration tax credit explained, link Link Link Link The authors would like to acknowledge the participation and the work done by Sophie Poirier in this publication

Read more
April 26, 2024

New rules will make it easier to transfer family businesses

The 2023 Federal Budget (the “Budget”), tabled on March 28, 2023, proposes amendments to certain provisions of the Income Tax Act (ITA) that would make “genuine” intergenerational business transfers no longer subject to the anti-avoidance rules of section 84.1 and allow the transferor to benefit from their capital gains exemption. To do so, the Budget establishes new general conditions that the parties must meet, as well as specific conditions that apply to “immediate” transfers, or those made over a period of no more than 36 months, and “gradual” transfers, or those that take five to ten years to complete. The general conditions that the parties must meet when disposing of a company may be summarized as follows: The vendor must be an individual other than a trust. Immediately prior to the transfer, the vendor, alone or with their spouse, must control the currently operating company. At the time of the transfer, the purchasing company must be controlled by one or more of the vendor’s children, who must be at least 18 years of age. The notion of “child” also includes stepchildren, grandchildren and nieces and nephews. The shares of the company being transferred must be qualified small business corporation (QSBC) shares or shares of the capital stock of a family-farm or family-fishing corporation (QFFP). The specific conditions relate to the transfer of control, economic interests and management of the company, and vary from case to case. FOR AN IMMEDIATE TRANSFER (36-MONTH TEST) In the case of immediate transfers, de jure control (being the holding of the majority of shares having voting rights), and de facto control (which includes the economic influence making effective control of the company likely), must be transferred at the time of sale. Voting and participating shares not transferred to the purchasing company at the time of sale must be transferred within the following 36 months, such that after this period, the transferor may hold only preferred shares, that is, non-voting or non-participating shares for an indefinite period (vs 10 years in the case of a gradual transfer). Also, the child, or at least one member of the group of children, must participate in the family business on a regular, significant and continuous basis for a minimum period of at least 36 months after the transfer is made. Lastly, the transferor must take reasonable steps to transfer the business’s administration and know-how and completely cease to manage the business before the 36th month after the transfer was made. FOR A GRADUAL TRANSFER (FIVE–TO–TEN–YEAR TEST) If the transfer is gradual, only de jure control must be transferred at the time of disposition. The balance of the voting and participating shares not transferred at the time of disposition must be transferred within 36 months of the first transfer. However, under the rules respecting gradual transfers, the transferor will only be bound to transfer de facto control of the business within 10 years of the initial transfer. In the case of a transfer of economic interests, the vendor is expected to significantly reduce the value of the equity and advance they have invested in the business within 10 years of the initial sale. The same requirement for a child’s active participation in the company and transfer of the management of the business apply, but this time for a period of 60 months after acquisition. PREVIOUS RULES (Bill C-208) The provisions of the 2023 Federal Budget have the effect of setting aside certain requirements of Bill C-208 applicable to the realization of a capital gain. Under Bill C-208, for the transferor to benefit from their capital gains exemption, the operating company and the purchasing company could not be amalgamated within 60 months of the sale. The bill also required that an independent assessment of the fair market value of the company’s shares be filed with the Canada Revenue Agency, along with an affidavit signed by the vendor. However, as of January 1, 2024, these criteria are no longer applicable. An assessment will no longer be required, although under section 69 of the ITA, the transfer will still have to be made at fair market value. The 2023 budget (reinforced by the 2024 Federal Budget) also introduces new rules for the alternative minimum tax, a temporary tax that the transferor in an intergenerational business transfer often has to pay. To avoid having this temporary tax becoming permanent, it’s important to understand the subtleties of these new rules. Our team of tax professionals will be happy to help you and answer any questions you may have about these new legislative changes.

Read more
April 16, 2024

Tax opportunities under the Indian Act

Although it is not often well-understood in business and tax circles, the Indian Act (the “Act”), coupled with federal and provincial tax laws, provides several tax planning opportunities for Indigenous taxpayers. These laws provide various tax exemptions for people who qualify as “Indians” under the Act, as well as for “bands” and other “councils.” These terms are defined in the Act and require case-by-case analysis, but essentially they refer to people of Indigenous origin who have at least one family member who is registered or entitled to be registered as an Indian within the meaning of the Act. The criteria for a tax exemption In particular, those who qualify can benefit from a tax exemption when income is earned on a “reserve.” There are several criteria to be met, and although the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has issued guidelines on the subject, their application remains a question of fact that varies depending on the particular circumstances applicable to each taxpayer. In general, the CRA requires that income earned by an “Indian” within the meaning of the Act be sufficiently connected to a reserve to be exempt. This is the case when, for example, income-generating services are performed entirely or almost entirely within the territory of a reserve, when the employer and the employee reside on a reserve, or when income is derived from non-commercial activities carried out by a band. Business income can also be tax-exempt, but the criteria for being considered connected to a reserve are stricter, since generally only income-generating activities situated on a reserve will be tax-exempt. However, it is still possible to organize the affairs of a taxpayer and their corporate entities to ensure that these criteria are met, or to highlight certain connecting factors. Such planning, if done properly, is entirely legitimate and can result in significant tax savings. In a recent interpretation (CRA Views 2022-0932231I7), the CRA illustrated this principle by considering employment income related to an off-reserve airport to be exempt, even if none of the guidelines are followed, in cases where such an airport is necessary to supply a reserve that has no other means of transportation and delivery. This interpretation shows that the connection between an income and a reserve is not established solely by the physical presence of the income-generating business, and that several other arguments, sometimes more subtle, can be used to support the connection between an income and a reserve. A few nuances to consider However, care must be taken when a company is incorporated by someone who qualifies as an “Indian.” A company with its head office on a reserve cannot qualify as “Indian” within the meaning of the Act. Its income therefore cannot be tax-exempt, and will be taxed according to the usual rules. Despite this, certain plans can ease the tax burden on these companies and on shareholders who qualify as “Indians” under the Act, such as paying wages and bonuses to an employee shareholder. But it’s essential to carefully analyze the various pitfalls and risks that such planning entails. Furthermore, certain exemptions exist for companies formed by bands, but the eligibility criteria are strict and require a thorough analysis of the proposed structure. In addition to the income tax exemption, “Indians” within the meaning of the Act and certain entities mandated by bands may benefit from a tax exemption when they purchase goods on a reserve or have goods delivered to them on a reserve. Different exceptions and nuances apply. However, companies headquartered on a reserve are not exempt from their tax collection obligations and may be required to register for the GST/QST. To help you understand these rules and ensure optimal tax planning, we invite you to consult our tax team. We look forward to working with you on your business projects.

Read more
April 9, 2024

The Government of Canada extends the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for an additional year

On March 28, 2024, the Department of Finance Canada announced a one-year extension to the 15% Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (“METC”) available to investors in flow-through shares. The extension means that the METC will be effective until March 31, 2025. This announcement came at a time when uncertainty loomed over the industry and some stakeholders feared that the government would not renew the METC. Over time, this tax credit has become a key component of flow-through share financings. It is intended to enhance the tax deductions already available to flow-through share holders and ultimately help companies raise capital for mineral exploration. The METC was last renewed in 2019 for a five-year period, indicating the government’s long-term commitment to the sector at that time. And while this renewal is welcome news for exploration companies, it should be noted that the shorter one-year horizon of the extension does not provide the same assurance regarding the incentive’s future. It is possible that this one-year renewal reflects the government’s intention to promote the new 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (“CMETC”) instead, on which more information can be found here: Federal Budget 2022: Good News for Mining Exploration Companies! In closing, it is important to note that the one-year extension to the 15% METC will not affect the period during which the 30% CMETC is available for critical mineral exploration, which will end on March 31, 2027, and is subject to renewal. If you were planning on financing non-critical mineral exploration, you may want to complete this transaction in the coming year in order to benefit from the 15% METC. Our team of professionals specializing in securities, mining law and taxation is available to answer any questions you may have concerning this new measure and to guide you in arranging a successful flow-through financing.

Read more