|
''Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada'', 2011 SCC 63, () 3 SCR 721,〔 A complete chronology of the transactions and series of transactions is given in Schedule A.〕 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") in the interpretation of the ''Income Tax Act (Canada)''. ("ITA") ==The facts== Copthorne Holdings was part of a group of Canadian and non-resident companies controlled by Li Ka-Shing and his son Victor Li. It had purchased the Harbour Castle Hilton hotel in Toronto in 1981, and sold it for a substantial capital gain in 1989. The proceeds of the sale had been invested by Copthorne in Copthorne Overseas Investment Ltd. (“COIL”), a wholly owned Barbados company that carried on an active bond-trading business in Singapore. Another company in the Li Group, VHHC Holdings, held directly (and indirectly through its subsidiary VHSUB Holdings) shares in Husky Energy Inc.. By 1991, there was a substantial unrealized capital loss on that investment. In 1992, VHHC Holdings was sold to Copthorne, and VHHC Holdings subsequently sold the majority of its VHSUB shares to Copthorne (inheriting the high adjusted cost base under stop-loss rules) which in turn sold the VHSUB shares to an unrelated purchaser at their fair market value, and thus realized the capital loss. This allowed Copthorne to carry the capital loss on the VHSUB shares back to shelter the capital gains from the sale of the Harbour Castle Hotel. in 1993, Copthorne sold its holding in VHHC to its parent, thus making Copthorne and VHHC "sister" corporations. They, together with two other companies, were amalgamated and continued under the Copthorne name. In 1994, amendments to the Foreign Accrual Property Income ("FAPI") rules in the ITA, which would have made COIL’s income FAPI, encouraged the Li Group to dispose of the business of COIL to another entity within the Li Group and to remove some or all of the proceeds of disposition from Canada. This was effected by a series of transactions that (in summary) involved the transfer of the shares of Copthorne and another related company to a new offshore company in the group, and redeeming certain shares of the company through a tax-free reduction of paid-up capital. The Minister of National Revenue applied GAAR to recharacterize this payment as a deemed dividend, and thus subject to a 15% non-resident withholding tax plus related penalty. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|