Cameco, together with its subsidiaries, is a large uranium producer and supplier of the services that convert one form of uranium into another form. Cameco had uranium mines in Saskatchewan and uranium refining and processing (conversion) facilities in Ontario. Cameco also had subsidiaries in the United States that owned uranium mines in the United States. The Canadian Revenue Agency found that transactions between Cameco Corp and the Swiss subsidiary constituted a sham arrangement resulting in improper profit shifting. Hence, a tax assessment was issued for FY 2003, 2005, and 2006. Cameco disagreed with the Agency and brought the case to the Canadian Tax Court. In 2018 the Tax Court ruled in favor of Cameco and dismissed the assessment. This decision was appealed by the tax authorities to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal in 2020 dismissed the appeal and also ruled in favor of Cameco A application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was then brought to the Canadian Supreme Court by the tax authorities. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 39368_Cameco_Judgment_on_Leave-Jugement_sur_demande ...

JSC Atomredmetzolo (ARMZ) is a Company incorporated in the Russian Federation dealing in uranium mining industry. Late 2010, the Company purchased from the Australia Stock Exchange all shares in Mantra Resources Limited (Mantra Resources) a company incorporated in Australia and owner of Mkuju River Uranium project located Tanzania. Following the acquisition of all the issued shares in Mantra Australia, JSC Atomredmetzolo became a sole registered and beneficiary owner of shares in Mantra Australia making Mantra Australia a wholly owned subsidiary of JSC Atomredmetzolo. Hence Mantra Tanzania and Mkuju River Uranium Project were placed under the control of JSC Atomredmetzolo who had a majority 51.4% shareholding in a Canadian Uranium exploration and mining company named Uranium One Inc. Thus, JSC Atomredmetzolo opted to invest in the Mkuju River Uranium project through Uranium One based in Canada. Subsequently, JSC Atomredmetzolo entered into a put/call option agreement with Uranium One, pursuant to which JSC Atomredmetzolo sold and transferred the shares it had acquired in Mantra Australia to Uranium One for a consideration equal to JSC Atomredmetzolo acquisition costs of the scheme shares. This was viewed by the tax authorities as acquisition of shares by JSC Atomredmetzolo in Mantra Australia which resulted into acquisition of interest in Mantra’s Core asset, that is, Mkuju River Uranium project located in Tanzania, because the subsequent sale and transfer of the said shares to Uranium One was a realization of interest in the Mkuju River Uranium project by JSC Atomredmetzolo. In that regard, the tax authorities concluded that, the said transaction was subject to taxation in Tanzania. As such, the tax authorities in November 2011 notified JSC Atomredmetzolo on existence of tax liability of USD 196,000,000/= assessed on investment income because the income earned has a source in Tanzania since the transaction involved a domestic asset. In addition, on account of conveyance of the domestic asset in question, the tax authorities also required JSC Atomredmetzolo to pay Stamp Duty which was assessed at USD 9,800,000. This made JSC Atomredmetzolo lodge two appeals to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board contesting the liability to pay the taxes. In a judgment handed down on 15th May 2013, the Board determined in favour of JSC Atomredmetzolo. This decision was later upheld by the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal in its ruling of december 2013. The tax authorities then brought to the Court of appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Court nullified the decisions from the previous instances, due to lack of legal jurisdiction. Excerpt “In the case at hand, since the appellant’s letter in question constituted notice on existence of liability to pay income tax to the respondent, it was illegal to seek remedy of an appeal before the Board which is statutorily barred to entertain appeals relating to tax assessment under the provisions of section 7A of the TRAA. Therefore, the Board had no jurisdiction and it embarked on a nullity to entertain the respondent’s appeals. Similarly, it was illegal for the Board to entertain the respondent’s appeal on stamp duty because the respective tax dispute resolving mechanism initially requires the dispute to be adjudicated by the Stamp Duty Officer and the appeal therefrom lies to the Commissioner and finally a reference may be made to the Board. Thus, as it was the case on the income tax dispute, the Board illegally entertained the respondent’s appeal on stamp duty and what ensued thereafter is indeed a nullity. We are fortified in that account because jurisdiction is a creature of statute and as such, it cannot be assumed or exercised on the basis of the likes and dislikes of the parties.” “On the way forward, we invoke our revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of section 4 (3) of the AJA to nullify the proceedings and judgments of the Board and the Tribunal because the first appeal stemmed from null proceedings.” Click here for translation consolidated-civil-appeals-nos-78-79-2018-commissioner-general-tanzania-revenue-authorityappellant ...

Cameco, together with its subsidiaries, is a large uranium producer and supplier of the services that convert one form of uranium into another form. Cameco had uranium mines in Saskatchewan and uranium refining and processing (conversion) facilities in Ontario. Cameco also had subsidiaries in the United States that owned uranium mines in the United States. In 1993, the United States and Russian governments executed an agreement that provided the means by which Russia could sell uranium formerly used in its nuclear arsenal. The net result of this agreement was that a certain quantity of uranium would be offered for sale in the market. Cameco initially attempted to secure this source of uranium on its own but later took the lead in negotiating an agreement for the purchase of this uranium by a consortium of companies. When the final agreement was signed in 1999, Cameco designated its Luxembourg subsidiary, Cameco Europe S.A. (CESA), to be the signatory to this agreement. The agreement related to the purchase of the Russian uranium was executed in 1999 among CESA, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) (a French state-owned uranium producer), Nukem, Inc. (a privately owned United States trader in uranium), Nukem Nuklear GMBH and AO “Techsnabexport” (Tenex) (a Russian state-owned company). This agreement, which is also referred to as the HEU Feed Agreement, initially provided for the granting of options to purchase the uranium that Tenex would make available for sale. In the years following 1999, there were a number of amendments to this agreement. In particular, the fourth amendment in 2001, in part, obligated the western consortium (CESA, COGEMA and Nukem) to purchase a certain amount of uranium (paragraph 82 of the reasons). On September 9, 1999, CESA entered into an agreement with Urenco Limited (Urenco) (a uranium enricher) and three of its subsidiaries to purchase uranium that Urenco would be receiving from Tenex. Also in 1999, Cameco formed a subsidiary in Switzerland. This company, in 2001, changed its name to Cameco Europe AG (SA, Ltd) (CEL). In 2002, CESA transferred its business (which was described in the transfer agreement as “trading with raw materials, particularly uranium in various forms”) to CEL under the Asset Purchase and Transfer of Liabilities Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002, but executed on October 30, 2002. Therefore, CESA transferred to CEL the rights that CESA had to purchase uranium from Tenex and Urenco. CEL also purchased Cameco’s expected uranium production and its uranium inventory. It would appear that this arrangement did not include any uranium that was sold by Cameco to any customers in Canada (paragraph 40 of the Crown’s memorandum). At certain times, Cameco also purchased uranium from CEL. The profits in issue in this appeal arose as a result of the sale of uranium by CEL that it purchased from three different sources: Tenex, Urenco, and Cameco. When the arrangements with Tenex and Urenco were put in place in 1999, the price of uranium was low. In subsequent years, the price of uranium increased substantially. As a result, the profits realized by CEL from buying and selling uranium were substantial. The Canadian Revenue Agency found that the transactions between Cameco Corp and the Swiss subsidiary constituted a sham arrangement resulting in improper profit shifting.  According to the Canadian Revenue Agency, Cameco would not have entered into any of the transactions that it did with CESA and CEL with any arm’s length person, cf. paragraph 247(2) of the Act. All of the profit earned by CEL should therefore be reallocated to Cameco Corp. Hence, a tax assessment was issued for FY 2003, 2005, and 2006 where $43,468,281, $196,887,068, and $243,075,364 was added to the taxable income of Cameco Canada. Cameco disagreed with the Agency and brought the case to the Canadian Tax Court. In 2018 the Tax Court ruled in favor of Cameco and dismissed the assessment. This decision was then appealed by the tax authorities to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and also ruled in favor of Cameco. “In this appeal, the Crown does not challenge any of the factual findings made by the Tax Court Judge. Rather, the Crown adopts a broader view of paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d) of the Act and submits that Cameco would not have entered into any of the transactions that it did with CESA and CEL with any arm’s length person. As a result, according to the Crown, all of the profit earned by CEL should be reallocated to Cameco. The Crown, in its memorandum, also indicated that it was raising an alternative argument related to the interpretation of paragraph 247(2)(a) of the Act. … However, subparagraph 247(2)(b)(i) of the Act does not refer to whether the particular taxpayer would not have entered into the particular transaction with the non-resident if that taxpayer had been dealing with the non-resident at arm’s length or what other options may have been available to that particular taxpayer. Rather, this subparagraph raises the issue of whether the transaction or series of transactions would have been entered into between persons dealing with each other at arm’s length (an objective test based on hypothetical persons) — not whether the particular taxpayer would have entered into the transaction or series of transactions in issue with an arm’s length party (a subjective test). A test based on what a hypothetical person (or persons) would have done is not foreign to the law as the standard of care in a negligence case is a “hypothetical ‘reasonable person’” (Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, at page 121, 1993 CanLII 146). … The Crown’s position with respect to this hypothetical transaction is also contradicted by its position in this case. Essentially, in this case, Cameco became aware of an opportunity to purchase Russian sourced uranium from Tenex and Urenco and chose to complete those arrangements through a foreign subsidiary rather than purchasing this uranium itself and selling it to third-party customers in other countries. This was a foreign-based business opportunity to ...

Canadian mining company, Cameco Corp., sells uranium to a wholly owned trading hub, Cameco Europe Ltd., registred in low tax jurisdiction, Switzerland, which then re-sells the uranium to independent buyers. The parties had entered into a series of controlled transactions related to this activity and as a result the Swiss trading hub, Cameco Europe Ltd., was highly profitable. Following an audit, the Canadian tax authorities issued a transfer pricing tax assessment covering years 2003, 2005, 2006, and later tax assessments for subsequent tax years, adding up to a total of approximately US 1.5 bn in taxes, interest and penalties. The tax authorities first position was that the controlled purchase and sale agreements should be disregarded as a sham as all important functions and decisions were in fact made by Cameco Corp. in Canada. As a second and third position the tax authorities held that the Canadian transfer pricing rules applied to either recharacterise or reprice the transactions. The Tax Court concluded that the transactions were not a sham and had been priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities have now decided to appeal the decision with the Federal Court of Appeal. See also Canada vs Cameco Corp, Aug 2017, Federal Court, Case No T-856-15 and Cameco’s settelment with the IRS Canada-vs-Cameco-Corp-Oct-2018tcc195 ...