May 22, 2013
Crystal Taylor

No Consolidated Taxation of Corporate Groups in Canada
This posting was authored by Crystal Taylor
a Partner in the Saskatoon Office of
Miller Thomson LLP

Canada does not have a formal system of corporate group taxation like the United States and other jurisdictions. Although Canadian corporate groups may be able to undertake loss consolidation transactions through financing arrangements, reorganizations, and transfers of property on a tax-deferred basis, such consolidation is generally more cumbersome and often requires obtaining tax rulings.

In its 2010 and 2012 Budgets, the Canadian Federal Government expressed interest in exploring the issue of whether new rules for the taxation of Canadian corporate groups, such as the introduction of a formal system of loss transfers or consolidated reporting, could improve the functioning of the corporate tax system in Canada.

The Federal Government conducted extensive public consultations on this issue, including with provincial and territorial officials. Generally, businesses indicated that they were primarily interested in a system of group taxation that would allow them to easily transfer losses, tax credits, and other tax attributes between members of a corporate group. Provinces and territories expressed their concerns about the possibility that a new system of corporate group taxation could reduce their revenues, and could result in significant upfront costs for governments associated with introducing a new approach to the taxation of corporate groups.

On March 21, 2013, the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, tabled the 2013 Federal Budget entitled Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity – Economic Plan 2013.  In the 2013 Budget, the Federal Government confirmed that it completed its examination of the taxation of corporate groups and determined that moving to a formal system of corporate group taxation is not a priority at this time. The Federal Government indicated that it will continue to work with provinces and territories regarding their concerns about the uncertainty of the cost associated with the current approach to loss utilization.

If you would like more information on this topic, please contact the author of this posting, Crystal Taylor at (306) 667.5613 or cltaylor@millerthomson.com.

April 18, 2013
Crystal Taylor

New Budget Rules for Non-Residents Carrying on Business in Canada
This posting was authored by Crystal Taylor
a Partner in the Saskatoon Office of
Miller Thomson LLP

On March 21, 2013, the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, tabled the 2013 Federal Budget (the “Budget”) entitled Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity – Economic Plan 2013. Among the tax measures contained in the Budget were changes to the interest deductibility rules applicable to non-resident owned entities known as the thin capitalization rules (“thin cap rules”).

Thin Capitalization Rules

The thin cap rules within the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Tax Act”) protect the Canadian tax base from erosion through excessive interest deductions in respect of debt owing to “specified non-residents” (as defined in the Tax Act).

In its 2008 report, the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation made a number of recommendations relating to the thin cap rules, including extending the rules to partnerships, trusts and Canadian branches of non-resident corporations.

Budget 2012 introduced certain amendments to the thin cap rules including, among other things, extending the scope of the thin cap rules to partnerships with one or more Canadian-resident corporate partners and the reduction of the debt-to-equity ratio from 2-to-1 to 1.5-to-1. See the January 11, 2013 posting on this Blog authored by Lyne M. Gaulin and John M. Campbell for a detailed discussion of the existing thin cap rules and the changes introduced in the 2012 Budget.

The current thin cap rules generally limit the deductibility of interest expense of a Canadian-resident corporation (or a partnership with one or more Canadian-resident corporate partners) in circumstances where the amount of debt owing to specified non-residents exceeds a 1.5-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio.

The current Budget proposes further amendments to the thin cap rules by extending the scope of their application to Canadian-resident trusts, and non-resident corporations and trusts that carry on business in Canada.

Canadian Resident Trusts

The Budget proposes that the existing thin cap rules will be extended to Canadian resident trusts and will be amended to accommodate the legal nature of trusts. A trust’s “equity” for the purposes of the thin cap rules will generally consist of contributions to the trust from specified non-resident beneficiaries plus the tax-paid earnings of the trust, less and capital distributions from the trust to specified non-residents. Trust beneficiaries will be used in place of shareholders in determining whether a person is a specified non-resident in respect of the trust.

Where interest expense of a trust is non-deductible as a result of the application of the thin cap rules, the trust will be entitled to designate the non-deductible interest as a payment of income of the trust to a non-resident beneficiary (i.e., the recipient of the non-deductible interest). In such a case, the trust will be able to deduct the designated payment in computing its income, but the designated payment will be subject to non-resident withholding tax under Part XIII of the Tax Act and potentially tax under Part XII.2, depending on the character of the income earned by the Trust.

This Budget proposal will also extend the thin cap rules to partnerships with one or more Canadian resident trusts as partners.

Similar to debt owed directly by the trust, where these rules result in an amount being included in computing the income of a trust, the trust will be entitled to designate the included amount as having been paid to a non-resident beneficiary as income of the trust.

Since some trusts may not have complete historical information, any trust that exists on Budget Day will be able to elect to determine the amount of its equity for thin cap purposes as at Budget Day based on the fair market value of its assets less the amount of its liabilities. Each beneficiary of the trust would then be considered to have made a contribution to the trust equal to the beneficiary’s share (determined by reference to the relative fair market value of their beneficial interest in the trust) of this deemed trust equity. Contributions to the trust, tax-paid earnings of the trust and distributions from the trust on or after Budget Day would then increase or decrease (as appropriate) trust equity for thin capitalization purposes.

The 1.5-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio will not change for Canadian resident trusts and partnerships with one or more Canadian resident trusts as partners.

Application Date

This measure will apply to taxation years that begin after 2013 and will apply with respect to existing as well as new borrowings.

Non-Resident Corporations and Trusts

The Budget also proposes to extend the thin cap rules to non-resident corporations and trusts that carry on business in Canada. The application and effect of the thin cap rules for a non-resident carrying on business in Canada will be similar to those in respect of a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary of a non-resident.

However, since a Canadian branch is not a separate person from the non-resident corporation or trust, the branch does not have shareholders or equity for purposes of the thin cap rules. Therefore, the thin cap rules for non-resident corporations and trusts will differ from the rules for Canadian-resident corporations in certain respects.

A loan that is used in a Canadian branch of a non-resident corporation or trust will be an outstanding debt to a specified non-resident for thin capitalization purposes it if is a loan from a non-resident who does not deal at arm’s length with the non-resident corporation or trust.

In addition, a debt-to-asset ratio of 3-to-5 will be used, which parallels the 1.5-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio used for Canadian-resident corporations.

Where the non-resident is a corporation, the application of the thin cap rules would increase its liability for branch tax under Part XIV of the Tax Act.

A non-resident corporation or trust that earns rental income from certain Canadian properties may elect to be taxed on its net income under Part I of the Tax Act rather than being subject to non-resident withholding tax under Part XIII on its gross rental income. The election allows the non-resident to compute its taxable income as if it where a resident of Canada, with such modifications to the tax rules as the circumstances require. Where such an election is made, the thin cap rules for non-resident corporations and trusts, rather than those for Canadian residents, will apply in computing the non-resident’s Part I tax liability.

This proposal will also extend the thin cap rules to apply to partnerships with one or more non-resident corporations or trust as partners. Any income inclusion for a non-resident partner that arises as a consequence of the application of the thin cap rules will be deemed to have the same character as the income against which the partnership’s interest deduction is applied.

Application Date

This measure will apply to taxation years that begin after 2013 and will apply with respect to existing as well as new borrowings.

For a more detailed discussion of the 2013 Federal Budget, see the MT Federal Budget Review dated March 21, 2013 available on our website.

If you would like more information on this topic, please contact the author of this posting, Crystal Taylor at (306) 667.5613 or cltaylor@millerthomson.com.

March 28, 2013
Crystal Taylor

This posting was authored by Haidah Amirzadeh and Kit McGuinness,
Miller Thomson LLP.

With a hot provincial economy, young work force, and comparatively low corporate and personal tax rates, Saskatchewan has become a very popular province for foreign investment. While foreign investors looking to start a business in Saskatchewan must consider the various effects that corporate structuring can have upon their business, they should also consider how it can impact their immigration status.

One of the biggest hurdles in gaining a Work Permit in Canada is the requirement of a positive Labour Market Opinion (“LMO”) to be issued by Service Canada. This requires the employer to make a detailed application regarding their unfruitful recruitment efforts in Canada. It’s a process which can be lengthy and cumbersome, particularly if Service Canada has no prior relationship with the employer.

However, investors in Canada can bypass this hurdle if they apply as an Intra-Company Transferee, which is provided for under R205(a), C-12 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, as applications made under this provision are LMO-exempt.

This type of Work Permit application is for executives, senior management, and those employees possessing specialized knowledge. It requires an existing foreign corporation to register a Canadian entity using either the Canadian Business Corporations Act, or a provincial equivalent. In addition to the foreign ownership requirement, there are important corporate structuring requirements to consider when making this type of application.

However, the LMO-exemption provided for in R205(a) is very much worth the extra effort as it can assist in creating stability for your company by allowing senior personnel or those with specialized knowledge to supervise in new Canadian entity’s formative stages.

If you would like more information on this topic, please contact the authors of this posting, Haidah Amirzadeh at 306.667.5608 or hamirzadeh@millerthomson.com and Kit McGuinness at 306.667.5614 or kmcguinness@millerthomson.com.

February 12, 2013
Crystal Taylor

This posting was authored by Katherine Xilinas,
Miller Thomson LLP.

In the early 1970s, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development recommended that developed nations grant non-reciprocal duty reductions in respect of importations of goods originating in developing countries in an effort to promote their economic growth and export diversification.  Accordingly, since 1974, Canada has had a federal policy of extending preferential duty rates to importations of goods originating in developing countries, known as the General Preferential Tariff ("GPT").  Most developed economies, including the U.S., the European Union and Japan, have similar programs.  In contrast with the benefits arising under its various trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA), Canada is not under any obligation to continue GPT benefits, which are subject to review and change from time to time. 

The current GPT covers approximately 175 beneficiary countries, including almost all non-OECD countries, and covers over 80% of tariff items, including many manufactured goods (notable exceptions include clothing, footwear and certain agricultural products).  To be eligible for GPT, over 60% of the value of an imported good must contain inputs from GPT beneficiary countries or Canada.  Further, goods are entitled to the GPT only if they are shipped to Canada directly from a beneficiary country. 

The GPT, which is legislated under the Customs Tariff, is reviewed every 10 years.  The current 10-year cycle is set to expire on June 30, 2014.  Since the last GPT review in 2003/2004, the global economic landscape has changed considerably, and significant shifts have taken place in the income levels and trade competitiveness of many developing countries including, among others, China, India, Brazil, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.  A comprehensive review is now underway to ensure that the GPT program remains appropriately aligned with Canada's development policy objectives.

Further to objectives set out in the 2012 Federal Budget, Canada's Department of Finance is proposing that preferential duty status be removed with respect to goods shipped to Canada from 72 countries, effective July 1, 2014.  These are countries that either: (a) are classified by the World Bank as high or upper-middle income economies for the last two years; or (b) have a 1% or larger share of world exports for two consecutive years according to World Trade Organization statistics.  Based on these criteria, it is the Government's intention to withdraw GPT eligibility from the following countries:

The practical impact of these changes is that importers of goods into Canada may pay more duty on goods that they import from countries losing their GPT status.  However, imports from the above-listed countries that are entitled to other preferential tariff treatments (e.g., under free trade agreements) will continue to be eligible for tariff preferences under those tariff treatments.

The Department of Finance Notice respecting the proposed changes to the GPT can be found at the following website:  http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2012/2012-12-22/html/notice-avis-eng.html.  Submissions on the proposed changes have been requested by the Department of Finance by February 15, 2013.

CBSA Verification Priority List

In January, the Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA"), which manages compliance with the Tariff Classification, Valuation and Origin programs, published its semi-annual list of trade compliance verification priorities.  The current targeted priorities are:

CBSA verification targets are based on ongoing risk analysis.  Importers and exporters of goods into and out of Canada and, in particular, those who trade in targeted goods should review their customs policies and practices to ensure compliance in advance of a possible verification audit by CBSA.  Any incidences of non-compliance may then be corrected or disclosed voluntarily so as to minimize and/or avoid potential liabilities, including penalties.

For further information in respect of any of the above, or for any other commodity tax, customs or international trade related matter, please contact the writer or any member of Miller Thomson's International Trade, Customs and Commodity Tax group.

January 11, 2013
Crystal Taylor

This posting was authored by Lyne M. Gaulin and John M. Campbell
Miller Thomson LLP

Existing Canadian Thin Cap Regime

The existing Canadian thin cap regime protects the Canadian tax base from excessive interest deductions by limiting the amount of interest expense that can be deducted by a corporation resident in Canada¹ (“Canco”) on cross-border loans from “specified non-resident shareholders” and non-residents not dealing at arm’s length with such shareholders (collectively referred to herein as “specified non-residents”). Generally, specified non-resident shareholders are non-residents who, either alone or together with non-arm’s length persons, own or have a right to acquire shares of Canco representing 25% or more of the votes or value of all Canco shares.

In the absence of the Canadian thin cap rules, specified non-residents could erode the Canadian tax base by financing Canco with significant debt and nominal equity. The Canadian thin cap rules prevent specified non-residents from doing so by disallowing any deduction for interest expense in computing the income of Canco in respect of debt owing to specified non-residents in excess of the permitted 2-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio.

Proposed Amendments to the Canadian Thin Cap Regime

Bill C-45 contains significant amendments to the existing Canadian thin cap regime.  These amendments consist of the following:

• reduce the permitted debt-to-equity ratio from 2-to-1 to 1.5-to-1,
• extend the scope of the Canadian thin cap regime to loans from specified non-residents to partnerships with one or more direct or indirect Canco partners,
• treat Canco’s disallowed interest expense and interest required to be included in Canco’s income in respect of loans to partnerships as dividends deemed paid by Canco to specified non-residents, and
• provide for an exception in circumstances where a Canco borrows from its controlled foreign affiliate.

Reduction of Debt-to-Equity Ratio

The proposed reduction of the permitted debt-to-equity ratio from 2-to-1 to 1.5-to-1 applies to taxation years beginning after 2012.  The computation of the debt component of the ratio will continue to be based on a monthly average of the greatest amount owing by Canco to specified non-residents in the month except that Canco will be required to include its “specified proportion” or proportion, as applicable, of a partnership’s debt owing to specified non-residents in relation to Canco as discussed in more detail below.

The equity component of the ratio is generally equal to the total of the following amounts:

1. Canco’s retained earnings at the beginning of the taxation year,
2. average of Canco’s contributed surplus at the beginning of each month in the taxation year to the extent contributed by a specified non-resident shareholder, and
3. average of the PUC of Canco shares at the beginning of each month in the taxation year owned by a specified non-resident shareholder.

The computation of the equity component of the ratio is subject to three changes under Bill C-45:

1. The PUC of the Canco shares is reduced for thin cap purposes by any PUC reduction under the foreign affiliate dumping rules to the extent Canco shares are owned by specified non-resident shareholders.
2. Any portion of the contributed surplus of Canco that arises on or after March 29, 2012 in connection with an Investment to which the foreign affiliate dumping rules apply is not taken into account.
3. The computation of the equity component also takes into account any reduction in the amount of the PUC of shares of a non-resident corporation that immigrates to Canada and becomes a Canco under rules in Bill C-45 meant to deter the use of corporate immigration to circumvent the foreign affiliate dumping rules.

Extension of Canadian Thin Cap Regime to Loans from Specified Non-Residents to Partnerships

The amendments extend the Canadian thin cap regime to loans made by a specified non-resident in relation to Canco to a partnership in which Canco has a direct interest or indirect interest through tiers of partnerships for taxation years beginning after March 28, 2012.  Canco is required to include in computing the debt component of its debt-to-equity ratio a portion of any debt owing by such a partnership to a specified non-resident.  

The portion of the partnership’s debt attributed to Canco is the “specified proportion”, if determinable.  Canco’s “specified proportion” generally means its share of the income (or loss) of the partnership for the fiscal period of the partnership ending at or before the end of Canco’s taxation year. Where the partnership income (or loss) for a particular fiscal year is nil, Canco’s “specified proportion” is computed as if the partnership had income for that period of $1,000,000. If Canco’s “specified proportion” cannot be determined, then Canco’s proportion of the debt of the partnership is computed based on the proportion that the fair market value of its interest in the partnership at that time is of the fair market value of all interests in the partnership at that time.

The inclusion of Canco’s “specified proportion” or proportion, as applicable, of a partnership’s debt has the effect of increasing the debt component of the debt-to-equity ratio of Canco in determining the amount of any debt owing or deemed to be owed by Canco to specified non-residents in excess of the permitted debt-to-equity ratio. Interest expense will be denied in computing Canco’s income in respect of each debt owing by Canco to a specified non-resident based on Canco’s excess debt ratio.

For Canadian tax purposes, it is not possible to deny an interest deduction at the partner level in respect of interest on partnership debt because the income (or loss) of a partnership is computed at the partnership level and allocated on a net basis (i.e., after deducting interest on partnership debt) to the partners. As a result, Canco’s portion of any interest expense deducted by the partnership in respect of Canco’s “specified proportion” or proportion, as applicable, of each debt of a partnership owing to a specified non-resident in relation to Canco is included in computing Canco’s income based on Canco’s excess debt ratio rather than being disallowed. The net result of this income inclusion for Canco should be the same as a disallowance of interest deduction because the inclusion in income should generally offset a corresponding interest expense deducted in computing the portion of the partnership’s income allocated to Canco.

The impact of these new rules on Canco is illustrated in the following example.  In this example, ForeignCo is a specified non-resident in relation to Canco and has made an interest bearing loan of $2,000,000 to Canco.  Canco’s equity for thin cap purposes is $1,500,000, comprised of PUC of the shares of Canco owned by a specified non-resident shareholder in the amount of $500,000 and retained earnings of $1,000,000. 

Canco has an interest in a partnership. The partnership agreement provides that 40% of the income (or loss) of the partnership is allocated to Canco.  ForeignCo has made an interest bearing loan of $1,000,000 to the partnership.  Canco’s “specified proportion” of the partnership loan would be $400,000 (40% of $1,000,000). 

The structure is illustrated below:

In this example, Canco’s aggregate excess debt amount (both direct and indirect) is computed as follows:

$2,000,000 (direct debt) plus $400,000 (indirect partnership debt) minus [1.5 x Canco’s equity of $1,500,000] = $150,000

Canco’s aggregate excess debt ratio is 5/80 ($150,000/$2,400,000).  The result is that 5/80 (or 6.25%) of the interest expense on Canco’s direct debt is not deductible in computing Canco’s income and 5/80 (or 6.25%) of the interest expense on the indirect partnership debt is included in computing Canco’s income.

Deemed Dividend Treatment for Canco's Non-Deductible Interest and Interest on Partnership Debt Included in Canco's Income

Under the existing Canadian withholding tax regime, both the denied and allowable portion of any interest on loans from specified non-resident lenders to Canco are treated as interest in the hands of specified non-resident lenders.  Interest (other than participating debt interest) paid or credited by Canco to a specified non-resident lender dealing at arm’s length with Canco is not subject to Canadian withholding tax.  Where a specified non-resident lender is not dealing at arm’s length with Canco, any interest paid or credited by Canco to such specified non-resident lender is subject to Canadian withholding tax at a rate of 25% or a reduced rate under an applicable income tax treaty.

Under the proposed amendments, any portion of the interest on a loan from a specified non-resident lender to Canco, or to a partnership in which Canco has an interest, that is denied or included in computing Canco’s income, as applicable, is deemed to be a dividend (rather than interest) paid or credited by Canco to the specified non-resident lender and is subject to Canadian withholding tax. If the denied or included interest is treated as a dividend rather than interest, the applicable rate of Canadian withholding tax may be different depending on whether the specified non-resident lender is dealing at arm’s length with Canco or entitled to a reduced withholding tax rate under a tax treaty.

An arm’s length specified non-resident lender will generally be adversely impacted if any denied or included interest (other than participating debt interest) is treated as a dividend since none of Canada’s tax treaties have a full exemption for Canadian withholding tax on dividends.

A non-arm’s length specified non-resident lender will also be negatively impacted if the interest (other than participating debt interest) is treated as a deemed dividend in the following circumstances. If a specified non-resident lender is not dealing at arm’s length with Canco for purposes of the Act and is entitled to the benefits of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (the “Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty”), there is no Canadian withholding tax on interest (other than participating debt interest).  On the other hand, the Canadian withholding tax rate under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty for dividends is either 5% if the beneficial owner of the dividend is a company that owns at least 10% of the voting stock of the company paying the dividend or 15% in all other cases. The Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty is currently Canada’s only tax treaty that has a full exemption for Canadian withholding tax in respect of interest (other than participating debt interest) on non-arm’s length debt.

The proposed amendments also provide that any interest (other than compound interest) payable by Canco, or a partnership in which Canco has an interest, in respect of Canco’s particular taxation year that remains unpaid at the end of such taxation year is deemed to have been paid or credited immediately before the end of such taxation year.  This proposal is a departure from certain Canadian tax provisions dealing with deemed payments which provide for a period after a taxation year during which certain amounts may be paid before triggering a deemed payment.

Canco will be entitled to designate in its return of income for a particular taxation year which payments of interest in the year are to be treated as dividends. Bill C-45 and related Explanatory Notes do not provide any guidance on the manner in which Canco can allocate deemed dividends among debts owing to specified non-residents.

However, we understand that the intention is that the treatment of any denied or included interest as a deemed dividend will apply proportionately and separately to each debt owed to a specified non-resident.  For example, if Canco’s excess debt ratio is 10%, then 10% of interest paid or payable in respect of each debt owing to specified non-residents in a taxation year will be treated as a deemed dividend.  Therefore, it would appear that Canco cannot allocate deemed dividends among specified non-residents in a disproportionate manner so as to benefit from a lower withholding tax rate under a tax treaty to which a particular specified non-resident may be entitled.

By making a designation, Canco may be able to address certain timing issues with respect to the triggering of the Canadian withholding tax on deemed dividends. If Canco does not make this designation, then each interest payment is considered to be a blended payment including both an interest and deemed dividend component.

No penalty will be imposed for any failure to deduct or withhold Canadian tax in respect of denied or included interest that is deemed to be a dividend if such interest would not have been subject to Canadian withholding tax had it been treated as interest.  This generally means that no penalty would be imposed in respect of deemed dividends to arm’s length specified non-resident lenders since no Canadian withholding tax is applicable on interest (other than participating debt interest) paid on arm’s length debt. There would also be no penalty imposed with respect to deemed dividends to non-arm’s length specified non-resident lenders who qualify for the exemption from Canadian withholding taxes on interest (other than participating debt interest) under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty.

These proposed amendments apply to taxation years ending after March 28, 2012 subject to certain transitional rules for dividends deemed paid in a taxation year that includes March 29, 2012.

Exception for Loans from a Controlled Foreign Affiliate to Canco

Loans owing by Canco to its controlled foreign affiliate may be subject to the Canadian thin cap regime which could result on the one hand, on interest being denied or included in income under the Canadian thin cap rules, and on the other hand, on the same interest being treated as foreign accrual property income (“FAPI”) and included in Canco’s income. In order to prevent this form of double taxation, it is proposed that the deduction of such interest would not be denied or that an amount equal to such interest would be deducted in computing any interest included in Canco’s income, as applicable, under the Canadian thin cap rules to the extent that a FAPI amount included in Canco’s income in respect of the particular taxation year or subsequent taxation year, or included in the partnership’s income for a fiscal period, may reasonably be considered to be in respect of such interest.

This proposed amendment applies to taxation years ending after 2004.

Reviewing Loan Arrangements with Specified Non-Resident Lenders

It is important for taxpayers to review their cross-border loan arrangements with specified non-resident lenders and to consult with their tax advisors to determine what, if anything, can be done to minimize the adverse Canadian tax consequences of these changes to the Canadian thin cap rules. Taxpayers should consider, among other things, whether loans receivable by a specified non-resident lender from a Canco should be transferred to another specified non-resident lender that is entitled to a lower Canadian withholding tax rate on dividends, whether Canco should repay loans owing to specified non-resident lenders in excess of permitted debt-to-equity ratio, and whether loans owing to specified non-resident lenders denominated in foreign currency should be converted into another currency to reduce the impact of foreign currency fluctuations.

If you would like more information on this topic, please contact the authors of this posting, Lyne M. Gaulin at 416.595.8590 or lgaulin@millerthomson.com and John M. Campbell at 416.595.8548 or jcampbell@millerthomson.com.

If you would like specific legal advice based on your particular circumstances, please contact one of the following lawyers at Miller Thomson LLP:

William Fowlis
Calgary, National Leader
wfowlis@millerthomson.com

Cheryl Teron
Vancouver
cteron@millerthomson.com

Joseph W. Yurkovich
Edmonton
jyurkovich@millerthomson.com

Crystal Taylor
Saskatchewan
cltaylor@millerthomson.com

John M. Campbell
Toronto
jcampbell@millerthomson.com

Lyne M. Gaulin
Toronto
lgaulin@millerthomson.com

Nathalie Marchand
Montreal
nmarchand@millerthomsonpouliot.com

¹ The Canadian thin cap regime applies to Canadian resident corporations whether or not controlled by a non-resident corporation. Therefore, a Canadian resident corporation subject to the thin cap regime may or may not be a CRIC subject to the foreign affiliate dumping rules.