Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada, 2011 SCC 63 (CanLII) is a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”)^[1] and provides the much-anticipated interpretation and confirmation of these rules.  While the “main event” was whether the transactions undertaken by the taxpayer resulted in abusive tax avoidance to which the GAAR applies, this blog focuses on the Court’s analysis of the meaning of “series of transactions”.  The “series of transactions” concept was critical to the outcome of this appeal.  The Court provided guidance on how past, present and future transactions are “contemplated”, thereby confirming the framework by which a “series of transactions” would be identified for the application of the GAAR.

On October 31, 2011 (on the fifth anniversary of the income trust amendments) the Department of Finance released a package of income tax and sales and excise tax technical amendments.  While most practitioners, including our firm, are still working through the package there are two proposed amendments that are worthy of an early comment.

Have you or your clients ever sold an intangible property like a client list?  A recent Tax Court of Canada case, George Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen, highlights the tax implications that can arise on the sale of such a property.

Later today Roy Berg, a US tax lawyer from Moodys LLP Tax Advisors will appear on the CBC national radio program The World at Six and the CBC national television program The National.  Mr. Berg will be interviewed regarding the Internal Revenue Service amnesty program for US Citizens and green card holders that expires on August 31.  The amnesty program, also called the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI), allows those who have not filed their income tax returns and foreign bank account reports (FBAR) to bring their filings current in exchange for reduced civil and criminal penalties.

Before we proceed the reader needs to know that the views expressed below are mine only and do not necessarily represent the views of all the accounting professionals in our firm.

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Alberta¹ is one of the early court decisions² examining the general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”) under the Alberta Corporate Tax Act.³  The issue was whether tax benefits resulting from a plan referred to as the "Ontario shuffle" should be denied under the GAAR to two taxpayers in the corporate group.  Both taxpayers were successful in this case.