Canada vs McKesson Canada Corporation, September 2014, Tax Court, Case No 2014 TCC 266

Category: Burden of Proof, Financial Transactions, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Following the Tax Courts decision in 2013 (2013 TCC 404), Judge Boyle J. in an order from September 2014 recused himself from completing the McKesson Canada proceeding in the Tax Court. This extended to the consideration and disposition of the costs submissions of the parties, as well as to confidential information order of Justice Hogan in this case and its proper final implementation by the Tax Court and its Registry.

Postscript

An appeal was filed by McKesson with the Federal Court, but the appeal was later withdrawn and a settlement agreed with the tax authorities.

In May 2015 McKesson filed a 10-K with the following information regarding the settlement

“…Income tax expense included net discrete tax benefits of $33 million in 2015, net discrete tax expenses of $94 million in 2014 and net discrete tax benefits of $29 million in 2013. Discrete tax expense for 2014 primarily related to a $122 million charge regarding an unfavorable decision from the Tax Court of Canada with respect to transfer pricing issues.

We have received reassessments from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRAâ€) related to a transfer pricing matter impacting years 2003 through 2010, and have filed Notices of Appeal to the Tax Court of Canada for all of these years. On December 13, 2013, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed our appeal of the 2003 reassessment and we have filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding this tax year. After the close of 2015, we reached an agreement in principle with the CRA to settle the transfer pricing matter for years 2003 through 2010. Since the agreement in principle did not occur within 2015, we have not reflected this potential settlement in our 2015 financial statements. We will record the final settlement amount in a subsequent quarter and do not expect it to have a material impact to income tax expense.”

Further information on the settlement was found in McKesson’s 10-Q filing from July 2015

“…We received reassessments from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRAâ€) related to a transfer pricing matter impacting years 2003 through 2010, and filed Notices of Appeal to the Tax Court of Canada for all of these years. On December 13, 2013, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed our appeal of the 2003 reassessment and we filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. During the first quarter of 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the transfer pricing matter for years 2003 through 2010 and recorded a discrete income tax benefit of $12 million for a previously unrecognized tax benefit.”

 






Related Guidelines


Related Case Law

  1. Canada vs McKesson Canada Corporation, December 2013, Tax Court of Canada, Case No. 2013 TCC 404McKesson is a multinational group engaged in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary, McKesson Canada, entered into a factoring agreement in 2002 with its ultimate parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg. Under the terms of the agreement, McKesson International...
  2. UK Parliament, House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, Hearings on Tax Avoidance SchemesFollow the work of the UK Parliament, House of Commons Committee of Public Account, on corporate tax avoidance schemes.   http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/taxation/   Statements from Amazon, Google and Starbucks, November 2012 Statement from Google June 2013  ...
  3. Denmark vs Takeda A/S and NTC Parent S.a.r.l., November 2021, High Court, Cases B-2942-12 and B-171-13The issue in these two cases is whether withholding tax was payable on interest paid to foreign group companies considered “beneficial owners” via conduit companies covered by the EU Interest/Royalties Directive and DTA’s exempting the payments from withholding taxes. The first case concerned...
  4. Belgium vs “Uniclick B.V.”, June 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No 2016/AR/455“Uniclick B.V.” had performed all the important DEMPE functions with regard to intangible assets as well as managing all risks related to development activities without being remunerated for this. Royalty-income related to the activities had instead been received by a foreign group company...
  5. Italy vs Engie Produzione S.p.a, January 2023, Supreme Court, Case No 6045/2023 and 6079/2023RRE and EBL Italia, belonged to the Belgian group ELECTRABEL SA (which later became the French group GDF Suez, now the Engie group); RRE, like the other Italian operating companies, benefited from a financing line from the Luxembourg subsidiary ELECTRABEL INVEST LUXEMBOURG SA...