Bill S-4 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016
An Act to implement a Convention and an Arrangement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend an Act in respect of a similar Agreement
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 31, 2016
- Debated in principleNov. 28, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 5, 2016
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2016
- Became lawDec. 14, 2016
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 bills that implement treaties, conventions, agreements or administrative arrangements bills. The following is a short summary: On 1 November 2016, the Hon. Peter Harder introduced Bill S-4, An Act to implement a Convention and an Arrangement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend an Act in respect of a similar Agreement (Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-4 implements a convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and an arrangement between the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. It also amends the Canada–Hong Kong Tax Agreement Act, 2013 to add to it, for greater certainty, an interpretation provision. The convention and arrangement are generally patterned on th…
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
1% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (21,545 words introduced, 21,542 passed).
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on many defined terms and fixed percentages or time limits that create clear rules. It also contains purpose tests and broad ministerial power that leave room for argument.
Open to argument
“may make any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the Convention or for giving effect to any of its provisions”
Uses subjective necessity standard and grants open-ended regulatory power.“one of the main purposes of any person concerned with an assignment or a transfer”
Subjective purpose test that invites disputes over intent.“make an appropriate adjustment to the amount of the tax charged”
Vague standard of appropriateness rather than a mechanical formula.
Clear-cut
“after eight years from the end of the year in which the profits which would be subject to such change would have accrued”
Hard eight-year cutoff supplies a clear temporal limit.“the term " permanent establishment " means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on”
Objective physical and functional test rather than a flexible standard.
Discretion. Section 5 and section 6 give the Minister of National Revenue wide power to issue any regulations needed to implement the treaties, with no statutory limits or criteria stated.
Challenging the law itself. The Act implements bilateral tax treaties with detailed definitions and numeric thresholds, so a facial Charter challenge on vagueness or overbreadth would face an uphill task.
Disputing a charge under it. Most operative rules use defined terms and percentages, but anti-avoidance provisions based on main purpose allow factual disputes over intent and connection.
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.