The taxpayers were two Barbados trusts with Canadian beneficiaries. The trusts realized substantial capital gains on the sale of the shares of two Canadian holding companies which held the equity in a Canadian automotive company. They took the position that they were resident in Barbados on the basis that their sole trustee ("St. Michael") was a Barbados-resident corporation.
The Court noted (at para. 9) that under the central management and control test that is applied in determining the residence of a corporation:
where the facts are that the central management and control is exercised by a shareholder who is resident and making decisions in another country, the corporation will be found to be resident where the shareholder resides. (See Unit Construction Co. v. Bullock, [1960] A.C. 351 (H.L.).)
The Court then found that the trusts were resident in Canada, stating (at para. 15):
As with corporations, residence of a trust should be determined by the principle that a trust resides for the purposes of the Act where "its real business is carried on" [De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. Howe, [1906] A.C. 455 (H.L.)], which is where the central management and control of the trust actually takes place. As indicated, the Tax Court judge found as a fact that the main beneficiaries exercised the central management and control of the trusts in Canada. She found that St. Michael had only a limited role - to provide administrative services - and little or no responsibility beyond that... .