Interest Deductibility, the Reasonable Expectation of Profit Test, and the Supreme Court of Canada: From Bronfman Trust and Moldowan to Singleton, Ludmer, Stewart and Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the 1970s, Canadian courts affirmed a narrow approach to the application of tax legislation, according to which these statutes were interpreted in a strict and literal manner and tax consequences were based on the legal character of transactions and arrangements irrespective of their commercial or economic substance and the absence of any non-tax purpose for their existence. Characterized by one Canadian writer as the two “pillars of tax planning,” these judicially-established norms of literalism and formalism were highly conducive to tax avoidance. From the late-1970s to the early 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a much broader approach to tax statutes, favouring a more purposive method of statutory interpretation, endorsing a more substantive approach to the application of tax rules having regard to “commercial and economic realities, rather than juristic classification of form,” and suggesting that tax-motivated transactions could fail to achieve their intended results where they contradict the “object and spirit” of a relevant statutory provision or the provision itself requires a business purpose. This article traces the change in the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to tax legislation by examining the criteria for interest deductibility set out in Bronfman Trust, Singleton and Ludmer, and the role of the reasonable expectation of profit test in Moldowan, Stewart and Walls. Section B reviews the cases on interest deductibility, contrasting the substantive approach employed in Bronfman Trust and various post-Bronfman Trust decisions with the formalist approach adopted in Singleton and Ludmer. Section C considers the reasonable expectation of profit test, contrasting the broad formulation in Moldowan and subsequent Federal Court of Appeal decisions with the much narrower interpretation adopted in Stewart and Walls. Section D offers concluding remarks, considering the reasons for and implications of the Court’s current approach, and the draft legislation released by the Department of Finance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".