Shaun MacIsaac commented on current post- BEPS issues including the new landmark Chevron case ...
In the coming years, pundits have predicted that a trillion dollars of assets are to be transferred from current owners to the new generation in Canada over the next decade. Orderly planning for the tax, asset protection and wealth building opportunities have to be top priority in these transactions.
Acquisition International have conferred the award to PMR Law for "Best for Transfer Pricing Disputes - Canada" for 2015. The firm is thrilled to be recognized internationally based on the criteria of peer review in this highly specialized field.
Written Comments on the Revised Discussion Draft
Chapter 1, Risk, Recharacterization and Special Measures
Leading Canadian transfer pricing cases favour domestic rules over OECD guidelines by Shaun T. MacIsaac, Q.C.
Multinational enterprises ("MNEs") seek to comply with the laws of the jurisdictions within which they operate, including transfer pricing laws. The OECD promotes world trade by preventing double-taxation. All stakeholders, including tax authorities seek clarity and guidance when determining prices for the transfer of intangibles, just as they do with transactions relating to goods and services, loans and guarantees.
In the decision on Teletech Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue 2013 FC 572 dated May 29, 2013, the Tax Court of Canada considered a request by the taxpayer to have the mutual agreement procedure (the "MAP") in the Canada -US tax treaty (the "Treaty") apply to avoid double taxation. The taxpayer asserted a duty of the CRA to act to uphold the provisions of the Treaty by making a downward adjustment to correspond to an upward adjustment done by the US IRS. The company had filed revised financial statements that reduced its profits in Canada, and increased its profits in the US. The CRA rejected the request for a downward adjustment in Canada by correspondence dated November 7, 2006. The CRA decided that it would not submit the request for a downward adjustment by the Canadian taxpayer to the competent authority that deals with the MAP. This position was maintained in response to a second request responded to in 2011. The taxpayer failed to apply for judicial review of either decision within a 30 day deadline for applications for Judicial review under Section 18 of the Federal Court Act.