|
Federal Tax - General Anti-avoidance Rule (GAAR) (3). Canada v. Quebecor Inc.
In Canada v. Quebecor Inc. (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismisses a Crown appeal, this brought against a ruling where "the Crown, as representative of the Minister, had failed to discharge its burden of establishing that the transactions in question were abusive".
Here the court considers the SOR for appeals regarding the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR):[39] The standard of review in matters involving the general anti-avoidance rule depends on the stage of the abuse analysis that a party contests. There are two stages to the abuse analysis. The first involves ascertaining the object, spirit, and purpose of the provisions at issue. This is a question of law, requiring appellate courts to apply the standard of correctness: Deans Knight at para. 78; Canada v. Alta Energy Luxembourg S.A.R.L., 2021 SCC 49 at para. 50; Trustco at para. 44; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 at paras. 8, 26–37. The second stage involves determining whether the transactions at issue are abusive. This analysis is "“necessarily fact‑intensive”" and is therefore subject to review only where there has been a palpable and overriding error, absent an extricable error of law: Deans Knight at para. 121; Trustco at para. 44; Canada v. Oxford Properties Group Inc., 2018 FCA 30 at para. 39; Housen at para. 10.
|
