15 September 2020 IFA Roundtable Q. 3, 2020-0853371C6 - IFA 2020 Q3: Draft IC71-17R6, Paragraph 43 -- summary under Paragraph 247(2)(b)

Please elaborate on the statement in draft IC71- 17R5, para. 43, that s.247(2)(b) is one of the Act’s “anti-avoidance provisions.” Where there is an s. 247(2)(b) assessment, will CRA restrict the taxpayer’s access to the relevant Treaty Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) provision? CRA responded:

  • Canada’s position is that any assessment that relies on a domestic anti-avoidance rule will be eligible for MAP consideration - but Canada will simply present the Canadian position relying on that anti-avoidance rule to the other Competent Authority for potential relief by the other country.
  • The finalized IC (like the draft) will refer to s. 247(2)(b) (like GAAR) as such a rule, given that it applies only where transactions are undertaken mainly for tax benefits rather than business reasons.
  • Thus, if it is a primary position of the CRA that 247(2)(b) applies then, as with GAAR assessments, Canada will simply present that position to the other Competent Authority and, if there is double-taxation, seek relief from the other country.
Topics and taglines
Tagline
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
603867
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
603868
Extra import data
{
"field_editor_tags": [],
"field_roundtable_subquestion": "",
"field_stub": false,
"field_legacy_header": ""
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state