Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:05:33.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Michael Lang
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Pasquale Pistone
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Josef Schuch
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Claus Staringer
Affiliation:
Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien, Austria
Get access

Summary

The relevance of the OECD and UN Model Conventions and their Commentaries for the interpretation of Canadian tax treaties

Canada is a small, open economy dependent on trade for its prosperity. It has an unusually large network of bilateral tax treaties. These include agreements with its NAFTA partners, Mexico and the USA, each of the other OECD Member countries, the so-called ‘BRIC’ group of Brazil, Russia, India and China, and many less significant trading partners. Notably, there are no treaties with Hong Kong or Taiwan, despite the significance of its trade and investment relationships with these two jurisdictions.

As an original Member country of the OECD, Canada has generally concluded its tax treaties on the basis of the most recent OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (OECD Model) as it has evolved since 1963. Canada was not represented in the UN's Group of Experts that worked to prepare the first version of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (UN Model) published in 1980, or in the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters that prepared the revisions for the 2001 UN Model, and is not currently represented on the Group of Experts. However, Canada's dual status as both a developed, wealthy, capital-exporting nation and, especially in relation to Japan, the UK and the USA, as a capital-importing country has resulted in some significant divergences from the OECD Model. These are most obvious in its tax treaty with the USA, which in the broader range and detail of its provisions reflects the unique degree of economic integration of Canada with the USA. In addition, Canada follows the UN Model in, for example, insisting on a provision allowing the source state to tax ‘other income’ and retaining the source-state taxation of certain royalties. It has also included an expanded ‘service PE’ provision in its treaty with the USA and in some of its other treaties, notably those with developing countries, such as Armenia and Mongolia.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ward, D. A.‘Canada's Tax Treaties’Canadian Tax Journal 5 1995Google Scholar
Arnold, B. JReforming Canada's International Tax System Toward Coherence and SimplicityTorontoCanadian Tax Foundation 2009Google Scholar
Arnold, BSasseville, JSpecial Seminar on Canadian Tax Treaties: Policy and PracticeTorontoCanadian Tax Foundation and International Fiscal Association, Canadian Branch 2001Google Scholar
Couzin, RIncome Tax Treaties, Canadian StyleIFACanadian Branch Travelling Lectureship 2008Google Scholar
Morris, R. L‘Surveying the Scene after Prévost Car Hits the Federal Court of Appeal, . v. , 2009 DTC 5053 Current Cases Feature’Canadian Tax Journal 2 2009 307Google Scholar
Williamson, W. GPorter, S. D‘Canadian Tax Treaty Rules for Dividends, Interest and Royalties’Arnold, BSasseville, JSpecial Seminar on Canadian Tax Treaties: Policy and PracticeTorontoCanadian Tax Foundation and International Fiscal Association, Canadian Branch 2001Google Scholar
Wilkie, S‘Policy Forum: Attribution of Profits to a Permanent Establishment’Canadian Tax Journal 2 2005 396Google Scholar
Couzin, R‘The OECD Project: Transfer Pricing Meets Permanent Establishment’Canadian Tax Journal 2 2005 401Google Scholar
Vincent, F‘Transfer Pricing and Attribution of Income to Permanent Establishments: The Case for Systematic Global Profit Splits (Just Don't Say Formulary Apportionment)’Canadian Tax Journal 2 2005 409Google Scholar
Boidman, N‘New TIEAs Extend the Playing Field for Canada's Multinational Enterprises’Tax Notes International 3 2010 209Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×