[HEADNOTE] TRAPS & TIPS [HEADNOTE] ...

[HEADNOTE]

TRAPS & TIPS

[HEADNOTE]

Interest Deductibility: A Brief Update

(SCC) not long ago delivered some interesting decisions forward interest deductibility that have riseed in a change to a certain quantity of of the CCRAs administrative positions. Here's an overview.

First, more [i]or[/i] less history

Interest is generally a capital outlay, and therefore merely deductible in a taxation year when the following criteria are met:

* The amount must be paid or payable in the year;

* There must be a legal obligation to pay the amount of interest; and

* The amount cannot exce a "reasonable" amount.

In addition to these criteria, interest payable forward money borrowed or property purchased onward credit must be used for the intent of earning income from a business or property-- referr to as an "eligible purpose" (It's important to note that a capital gain forward the disposition of a possessions is not included in the computation of income from that property)

If all of these criteria are met a taxpayer is eligible for a deduction of the interest in computing their income from a business or property

Established jurisprudence

While the four aforementioned points are important, it's the issues related to whether or not an eligible plan exists that tend to be the mostly commonly encountered. One of the greatest in quantity famous cases dealing with eligible objects is the Trans-Prairie case, which arose more than thirty years ago. Trans-- Prairie addressed whether a corporation had used borrowed cash to fund a redemption of shares for the meaning of producing income from a business. The court set that share capital had been used to stock the business's working capital, and the borrowed circulating medium had "filled a hole" in the capital constitution when these shares were regained The borrowed money had therefore been used for the indirect object of earning income from a business, and the interest in succession that borrowed money was deductible.

In the Bronfman Trust case decided according to the SCC in 1987, a trust that wanted to distribute capital to a beneficiary had borrowed stores to make the capital distribution instead of selling income-producing investments. The trust had then sought to take away the interest on the assertion that the coin had been borrowed for an eligible purpose-to protect income-producing properties. The court establish that the law focused not forward the purpose of the borrowing, unless rather on the taxpayer's view in using the borrowed wealth It found that interest cost was deductible only if a sufficiently direct link between the borrowed currency and the eligible use exists (except in certain exceptional circumstances, like as those in the Trans-- Prairie case; thus, the general [i]or[/i] abstract notion of "tracing" the use of borrowed coin to an eligible purpose was developed

Recent jurisprudence

In Ludco a decision delivered by the agency of the SCC in September of 2001 taxpayers had borrowed substantial amounts of coin at market interest rates to invest in shares of corporations resident in a tax haven. Having invested the supplys in interest earning securities, the corporations had earned tax-free income. from carefully structuring their investments, the taxpayers had avoided the foreign accrual goods income (FAPI) rules that would have included the

[IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH]

Photo [Not Transcribed]

[IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH]

Did You Know?

it's the issues related to whether or not an eligible intention exists that tend to be the greatest in number commonly encountered

Photo [Not Transcribed]

corporations investment income in their taxable income in Canada (a after change to the FAPI authoritys has ended opportunities for similar structures) The corporations had paid actual small dividends relative to the interest cost on the loans. Accordingly, the taxpayers had benefited from large deductions for their interest payments, while deferring the income from their investment. An added benefit had been the following appreciation of the corporations' shares-when these shares had eventually been sold barely the taxable portion of the capital gain had been included in income.

The Canadian tax authorities challenged the interest deductions in succession the grounds that the interest charge exceeded the dividend income from the estate and that the primary intention of the borrowing had been to yield a capital gain (not to earn dividend income). Since the companies' stated dividend policy was to pay annual dividends in small amounts, the taxpayers had known their interest cost would exceed the dividend income. The first question for the courts was whether the use of the word "income" meant gros or unadulterated If the Income Tax Act had required an expectation of pure income for an eligible meaning to exist, the taxpayers would have squandered as they would not earn a profit from their investment until they sold the shares. However, the SCC place that the Act only required an expectation of gros income. The secondary question was whether the earning of income had to be the taxpayer's primary intention, or if it could be an ancillary design The court found that the income earning meaning need only be ancillary, and the taxpayers were allowed the interest deduction.