Bill C-48 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 21, 2012
- Debated in principleMarch 8, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 29, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 24, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Robert BlackSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Alain GiguèreHe says the NDP will support the bill despite its flaws and backlog of amendments.
- Raymond Côtéstates it will be a great pleasure to support this bill
- Guy Caronstates the NDP will support the bill because it eliminates tax loopholes.
- Kevin LamoureuxStates the Liberal Party supports the bill and notes many amendments should have passed years ago.
- Joy SmithShe emphasizes the bill's importance for tax fairness and the government's low-tax plan.
- Shelly Gloverdescribes the bill as a major advancement in simplification of the tax system.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for bills that implement treaties, conventions, agreements or administrative arrangements bills. The following is a short summary: On 21 November 2012, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation (Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 of this enactment implements, in accordance with proposals announced in the March 4, 2010 Budget and released for comment on August 27, 2010, amendments to the provisions of the Income Tax Act governing the taxation of non-resident trusts and their beneficiaries and of Canadian taxpayers who hold interests in offshore investment fund property. Parts 2 and 3 implement various technical amendments in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations relating to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. The amendments in Part 2 are based on draft proposals released on December 18, 2009. Among other things, Part 2…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2013-03-07 · Passed
How it changed on the way
85% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (283,489 words introduced, 275,454 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill underwent extensive technical revisions during passage, with 85 percent of the introduced text removed or replaced before royal assent in June 2013. Core rules on non-resident trusts, foreign affiliates, and related tax provisions were retained but refined in wording, dates, and transitional rules.
- Adjusted transitional rule for pre-2007 taxation years in subsection 51(1).
Before: “except that, for any taxation year of the taxpayer that ends before 2007 in respect of which subsection 94(1) of the Act, as enacted by section 7, does not apply to the taxpayer,”
After: “except that, for any taxation year of the taxpayer that ends before 2007 in respect of which subsection 94(1) of the Act, as enacted by section 7, does not apply to the taxpayer,”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text relies on dozens of tightly defined terms and numbered objective conditions such as exact month counts and age limits. A few reasonableness phrases still leave room for argument over application.
Open to argument
“it is reasonable to conclude that none of the reasons”
Introduces a subjective judgment about motives rather than a purely factual test.“to the extent that it can reasonably be considered to have been made in respect of”
Requires weighing the connection between transactions, inviting differing interpretations.
Clear-cut
“periods the total of which is, not more than 60 months”
Supplies a clear numerical threshold that can be verified from records.“a child beneficiary under 21 years of age”
Uses an objective age cutoff with no discretion.
Discretion. Limited discretion appears in filing elections with the Minister and in the trust's ability to opt out of exempt-foreign-trust status, but these are procedural choices rather than open-ended regulatory power.
Challenging the law itself. Extensive definitions and objective lists reduce vagueness or overbreadth claims under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. The reasonableness tests allow factual disputes over whether a transfer meets the arm's-length or contribution criteria, though the surrounding definitions narrow the range of argument.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.