Bill C-82 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act
An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 20, 2018
- Debated in principleOct. 15, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 2, 2019
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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 self-explanatory measures. The following is a short summary: On 20 June 2018, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting (Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-82 enacts implements a multilateral instrument in respect of conventions for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. The multilateral instrument is an international treaty developed as part of the G20 and OECD’s project to tackle base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). The purpose of the multilateral instrument is to modify, in their application, tax conventions between two or more parties to the multilateral instrument so as to further the objectives of the tax convention. The multilateral instrument operates alongside tax conventions to modify them in their application; it does not directly modify the text of the tax conventions. The multilateral instrument will apply to a Cana…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
0% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (23,484 words introduced, 23,483 passed).
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act mixes exact numerical thresholds and defined terms with subjective phrases and a wide regulation-making power. This creates pockets of clarity alongside areas open to interpretation and administrative discretion.
Open to argument
“if it is reasonable to conclude”
Subjective standard that invites argument over what facts meet the test.“any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the multilateral instrument or for giving effect to any of its provisions”
Broad grant of power without objective limits on what the Minister may decide is necessary.“in the absence of such agreement”
Leaves outcome to future negotiation rather than fixing a rule in the statute.
Clear-cut
“throughout a 365 day period that includes the day of the payment of the dividends”
Fixed calendar period creates an objective, verifiable test.“at least 50 per cent of the shares of the person”
Numerical ownership threshold that can be measured directly.“less than 60 per cent of the tax that would be imposed”
Clear percentage comparison that avoids qualitative judgment.
Discretion. Section 5 leaves the Minister of National Revenue free to issue any regulations deemed necessary to implement the instrument, with no statutory criteria or time limits.
Challenging the law itself. Complex tax treaty rules are unlikely to be struck for vagueness under section 7 of the Charter, as courts give wide latitude to international tax measures.
Disputing a charge under it. A taxpayer could dispute application of phrases such as 'reasonable to conclude' or 'active conduct of a business' by pointing to the detailed but sometimes conflicting options in the text.
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.