People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The principal purpose test in the OECD Multilateral Instrument has attracted significant academic attention but, until now, no judicial commentary.&nbsp; In this article, Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie take a deep dive into what is understood to be the world&rsquo;s first decision on the principal purpose test: SC Lowy P.I. (Lux) S.A.R.L., Luxembourg v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the Delhi Bench of India's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case—A Landmark Ruling on the MLI Principal Purpose Test

Article 4(1) of Canada’s income tax treaties defines a “resident” of a Contracting State to mean a person who is subject to comprehensive tax in that State “by reason of” various criteria, such as domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature.

Deemed US Corporation not a US Treaty Resident

Deemed U.S. Corporation not a U.S. Treaty Resident: HRMC v. GE Financial Investments Ltd.

Marshall R. Haughey

Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) provides for the deduction of interest on amounts payable for property acquired to produce income from that property or from a business. Although the provision is relied upon frequently, there is limited guidance on its application in many common commercial scenarios, including asset acquisitions, intercompany financings, refinancings, and corporate reorganizations.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii)

Spencer Brown

On October 29, 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/trust-reporting-for-the-2024-tax-year.html" target="_blank">issued a release</a> stating that it will not require bare trusts to file trust returns for the 2024 tax year, continuing the administrative exemption that was <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/bare-trusts-exempt-from-trust-reporting-requirements-2023.html" target="_blank">granted for the 2023 tax year</a>. The CRA's recent announcement follows on the heels of <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://fin.canada.ca/drleg-apl/2024/ita-lir-0824-l-3-eng.html" target="_blank">proposed amendments</a> to the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the Proposed Amendments) released in August that, among things, would provide targeted reporting relief for bare trusts meeting certain criteria.

CRA Relief and Proposed Amendments Mitigate Bare Trust Reporting Burden on Energy Companies

Samantha Lush

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Kateryna Korneliuk

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary

Articling Student  

Mortgage agreements in Alberta commonly include waivers of Sections 49 and 52 of the Expropriation Act, which can significantly alter how compensation is allocated when land is expropriated. These clauses may shift financial risk from lenders to borrowers and affect entitlement to market value-based compensation and disturbance payments. This blog examines the legal enforceability of such waivers and highlights the importance of clear drafting and independent legal advice.

Drafting Cautiously Waiving Statutory Protections

Sections 49 and 52 of Alberta's Expropriation Act in Mortgage Agreements

Drafting Cautiously: Waiving Statutory Protections 

Sophie Virji

Anna Lekach

The Tax Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in ExxonMobil Canada Resources Company v. The King highlights the risks of imprecise language in internal corporate communications during CRA audits. The case demonstrates how seemingly innocuous statements can be misconstrued and relied upon to support reassessment positions. It underscores the importance of careful, deliberate drafting to mitigate audit risk and avoid unintended interpretations.

The Issue with Misconstrued Internal Statements

Learnings from ExxonMobil Canada Resources Company v. The King

Jacob Schroeter

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Quinn Rozwadowski

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

This article examines the Ontario Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in McDonald&rsquo;s v. North Elgin, confirming that landlords cannot terminate long-term leases due to missing Planning Act consent where the approval process remains ongoing. It highlights the importance of &ldquo;saving clauses,&rdquo; cooperation obligations, and the retroactive curing effect of consent under the Planning Act. The decision reinforces that parties must honour their contractual commitments despite administrative delays.

Anchored Down Long Term Leases and the Limits on Landlord Exit Rights

Anchored Down:  Long-Term Leases and the Limits on Landlord Exit Rights

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Christopher Petrucci

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Brian P. Reid

Construction & Energy Litigation Lawyer

The Alberta Court of King&rsquo;s Bench in Phoenix Treatment Systems Ltd v 1924613 Alberta Ltd confirmed that not all activities qualify as lienable work capable of extending lien deadlines under the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act. The decision reinforces that only work sufficiently connected to the construction process will extend the registration period. Parties should take care to accurately identify the last day of lienable work, as errors may invalidate an otherwise enforceable lien.

Not All Work Will Extend the Lien Period

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

David Wainer

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The recent decision by Anthropic to temporarily withhold public release of its powerful new artificial intelligence model, Claude Mythos (Mythos), is a stark reminder of how cybersecurity must rapidly evolve to keep pace with AI.

AI Powered Cyber Threats Are Changing the Risk Equation Are Your Vendors Ready

AI-Powered Cyber Threats Are Changing the Risk Equation—Are Your Vendors Ready?

Mandatory Disclosure Rules Recent Developments

From the Same Authors

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case—A Landmark Ruling on the MLI Principal Purpose Test

Deemed U.S. Corporation not a U.S. Treaty Resident: HRMC v. GE Financial Investments Ltd.

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii)

Latest Insights

Drafting Cautiously: Waiving Statutory Protections

The Issue with Misconstrued Internal Statements

Anchored Down: Long-Term Leases and the Limits on Landlord Exit Rights

Not All Work Will Extend the Lien Period

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.