CRA confirmed that it was appropriate to consider taking into account stock-option compensation expenses incurred by Canco in relation to its Canadian employees as a component of what would be a charge complying with the s. 247(2) transfer-pricing rules for their services to a non-resident affiliate, even where such stock compensation costs were non-deductible pursuant to s. 7(3)(b).
Conversely, stock-based compensation expenses of a non-resident affiliate could be relevant in determining what was a charge by the parent to Canco that accorded with the arm’s length principle under s. 247(2). For example, where the Canadian taxpayer is part of a group that is held by a related non-resident public corporation, and the public corporation issues shares to the employees of its group, including the employees of the Canadian taxpayer, that charge would be the compensation the Canadian taxpayer pays to the other corporation and, in those circumstances, s. 7(3)(b) would generally apply and s. 112(1)(e) might allow a deduction if its conditions are met.