• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo Bennett Jones
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Resources
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All

FEATURED AREAS

Energy
Funds & Finance
Mining
Capital Projects
Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
All Industries
All Practices
Global Reach
Insights
Events
Media
Recent Work
Subscribe
Anti-Spam Learning Centre
Kickstart
Client Extranet Login
People
Featured Areas
All Practices
All Industries
About
Offices
Insights
Events
Search
Search
 

Blog

Implication of Daishowa to Purchasers

January 19, 2018

 
Subscribe
Print
Share
Share
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Written by Greg M. Johnson and Wade Ritchie

Since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Daishowa‑Marubeni International Ltd. v. Canada, 2013 SCC 29 [Daishowa], clarity exists for how a vendor treats abandonment obligations on the sale of resource properties—namely, the amount of the abandonment obligations do not form additional consideration but are simply factored into the purchase price for such properties. Daishowa did not address how the purchaser should characterize the costs incurred in meeting these assumed abandonment obligations.

In a recent article available to subscribers at Thomson Reuters, The Cost of Acquiring an Asset With Environmental Liabilities Post - Daishowa, we address this issue. The Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) had historically taken the view that a purchaser should include the amounts paid for abandonment obligations as an additional cost of the property which would typically be additional COGPE (or Canadian oil and gas property expense). The CRA refused to update this position at the 2017 Canadian Petroleum Tax Society Conference, however, this view is inconsistent with Daishowa where the Court held that the proceeds of disposition for a resource property is the amount received (which would include consideration of, and be reduced by, any abandonment obligations). In our view, the purchaser should not include amounts paid for assumed abandonment obligations as an additional cost of the resource property, and should apply general tax principles to characterize these costs. The applicable test will be whether such amounts are on income or capital account. In the article we conclude that the payment of such abandonment costs should generally be on income account and be deductible in computing income.

Subscribe
Share
Share      
 
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 

Authors

  • Greg M. Johnson Greg M. Johnson, Partner
  • Wade  Ritchie Wade Ritchie, Associate

Due North: U.S. Private Equity Sets Sights on Canada

Learn more

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Freehold Mineral Owners in Saskatchewan May Face Changes [...]

December 09, 2019
       

Blog

ACO Authority Confirmed—Duty to Consult Not Triggered [...]

December 03, 2019
       

Blog

Displacing Coal in Asia with North American LNG

November 28, 2019
       

Blog

Federal Court Issues Site-Blocking Order for ISPs

November 25, 2019
       

Blog

ILPA's Model Limited Partnership Agreement for Private Funds

November 20, 2019
       

The firm that businesses trust with their most complex legal matters.

  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

© Bennett Jones LLP 2019 All rights reserved. Bennett Jones refers collectively to the Canadian legal practice of Bennett Jones LLP and the international legal practices and consulting activities of various entities which are associated with Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones Bennett Jones