Corporate Tax Planning: GAAR: An Economic Test?—The Courts Divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors of this article review the history and development of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), for the purpose of assisting in the analysis of recent decisions of the federal and provincial courts of appeal. They discuss the inherent difficulty in construing section 245 and outline various tests that the courts could have employed to interpret its provisions. The authors then review three of the four decisions in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted GAAR—Canada Trustco, Mathew, and Copthorne. With that background, the authors contrast the different approaches to the provincial general anti-avoidance rules taken, on the one hand, by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Husky Energy and Canada Safeway, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Inter-Leasing, and the BC Court of Appeal in Veracity, and, on the other hand, by the Quebec Court of Appeal in OGT Holdings and Iberville. They then compare and contrast those approaches with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada on how GAAR should be interpreted. The authors also discuss the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in four recent GAAR decisions—Univar, Oxford Properties, 594710 British Columbia Ltd., and Birchcliff. They compare and contrast that approach with the approaches of the provincial courts, and consider whether the Federal Court of Appeal's approach is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's pronouncements on GAAR. Finally, the authors offer some advice for tax planners based on the recent GAAR decisions of the various courts of appeal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".