Case Summary: Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen (1984)

In the case of Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a company could legally reduce its taxes by transferring profits to a sister company with past financial losses. This was because the tax laws allowed such arrangements, and the transaction was genuine and legally complete. The court emphasized that people and companies can organize their affairs to pay the least amount of tax legally possible, as long as they don’t engage in deceitful or fake transactions.

Court: Supreme Court of Canada

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536

Date: 1984-06-07

Docket: 16623

Coram: Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, and Wilson JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: Estey J. delivered the reasons for judgment, with concurring reasons by Wilson J.

Appellants: Stubart Investments Limited

Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen

On Appeal From: Federal Court of Appeal

Overview:
The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a corporate taxpayer could route future profits through a sister subsidiary to take advantage of the latter’s loss carry-forward, a mechanism for tax reduction. The case addressed issues of whether such transactions were valid or constituted a sham.

Facts:
Stubart Investments Limited (the appellant) was a subsidiary of Finlayson Enterprises Limited. Another subsidiary, Grover Cast Stone Co. (Grover), had accumulated substantial tax losses. In January 1966, Stubart sold its assets to Grover, and Grover appointed Stubart as its agent to manage the business, directing all profits to Grover. For the fiscal years 1966-1968, Grover reported these profits on its tax returns. The Department of National Revenue reassessed Stubart, charging the income back to Stubart’s taxable income. Stubart’s appeal was dismissed by the Tax Appeal Board, the Federal Court (Trial Division), and the Federal Court of Appeal.

Legal Issue:
The primary legal issue was whether a corporate taxpayer could legally establish an arrangement to route future profits through a sister subsidiary to use the latter’s loss carry-forward for tax purposes.

Decision:
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Reasoning:
Estey J., writing for the majority, held that a transaction could not be disregarded for tax purposes solely because it was entered into without an independent or bona fide business purpose. The Court found that the transaction was not a sham; it was legally valid and complete. Estey J. emphasized that the Income Tax Act permits taxpayers to order their affairs to minimize taxes, provided they do so within the boundaries of the law. The Court did not find any specific statutory provision that the transaction violated. The principle that taxpayers are entitled to arrange their affairs to attract the least tax liability is deeply entrenched in Canadian law.

Conclusion:
The transaction between Stubart and Grover was not a sham and was legally effective. The appellant was entitled to order its affairs in such a manner to reduce tax liability, as long as the transaction did not contravene any statutory provision of the Income Tax Act.

Implications:
The decision in Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen reaffirmed the principle that taxpayers could arrange their affairs to minimize taxes without necessarily having a separate business purpose. The case also provided clarity on the concept of sham transactions and confirmed that tax avoidance, as long as it is within legal boundaries, is permissible in Canadian tax law.

Cited Authorities:

• Gregory v. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 293 U.S. 465 (1934)
• Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960)
• Cridland v. Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1978), 52 A.L.J.R. 96
• Dominion Bridge Co. v. The Queen, 1975 CanLII 2472 (FC), 75 DTC 5150
• Lagacé v. Minister of National Revenue, [1968] 2 Ex. C.R. 98
• Minister of National Revenue v. Leon, 1976 CanLII 2231 (FCA), [1977] 1 F.C. 249
• Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 2306 (FCA), [1977] 1 F.C. 760
• W.T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1981] 2 W.L.R. 449
• Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Burmah Oil Co., [1981] T.R. 535
• Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v. Dawson, [1984] 1 All E.R. 530

Statutes and Regulations Cited:

• Income Tax Act, R.S.C 1952, c. 148, s. 137, now 1970-71-72 (Can.), chap. 63 as amended, s. 245

Treaties and Other International Instruments:
None cited.

Authors Cited:

• Whiteman and Milne, Whiteman and Wheatcroft on Income Tax
• Surrey et al., Federal Income Taxation, Cases and Materials

Solicitors:

• Appellant: P. B. C. Pepper, Q.C., and M. J. Penman, for the appellant
• Respondent: William Hobson, Q.C., Jagg Gill, and Susan Van der Hout, for the respondent

This information is for discussion purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. There is no guarantee or warrant of information on this site and it should be noted that rules and laws change regularly. You should consult a professional before considering implementing or taking any action based on information on this site. Call our team for a consultation before taking any action. ©2024 Shajani CPA.

Shajani CPA is a CPA Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer firm and provides Accountant, Bookkeeping, Tax Advice and Tax Planning service.

Trusts – Estate Planning – Tax Advisory – Tax Law – T2200 – T5108 – Audit Shield – Corporate Tax – Personal Tax – CRA – CPA Alberta – Russell Bedford – Income Tax – Family Owned Business – Alberta Business – Expenses – Audits – Reviews – Compilations – Mergers – Acquisitions – Cash Flow Management – QuickBooks – Ai Accounting – Automation – Startups – Litigation Support – International Tax – US Tax – Business Succession Planning – Business Purchase – Sale of Business