Canada: Teletech Canada, Inc. V. Minister Of National Revenue – Transfer Pricing Dispute Resolution Gone Wrong

Last Updated: October 23 2013
Article by Melissa Wright

The recent decision of the Federal Court in TeleTech Canada, Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue ("TeleTech") 1 reminds all taxpayers dealing with transfer pricing adjustments of the strict procedural requirements for initiating a request for competent authority relief under the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (the "Treaty"), and of the domestic remedies that may be available to facilitate the process.

Article IX of the Treaty and the Mutual Agreement Procedure ("MAP") under Article XXVI of the Treaty provide relief to taxpayers where the actions of one or both governments have resulted in taxation not in accordance with the Treaty.  They allow Canada or the U.S. to make corresponding adjustments, resolve Treaty-based disputes themselves or, where applicable, submit matters to binding arbitration.  These Treaty-based and domestic procedures must be carefully and diligently pursued.

TeleTech illustrates the discretion of the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA") to deny a request for competent authority assistance.  While TeleTech raises several important issues, this article will focus on the Federal Court's consideration of the potential availability of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to compel the CRA to accept a taxpayer's request for competent authority assistance.

Background

TeleTech Canada Inc., ("TeleTech Canada"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of TeleTech Holdings Inc. ("TeleTech Global U.S.") (collectively "the Companies"), was involved in the call-centre business.  The Companies underwent a corporate restructuring in 2000 whereby TeleTech Canada became a subcontractor of TeleTech U.S., with the latter providing administrative services to the former.  The pricing of such administrative services was central to the transfer pricing disagreement between TeleTech Canada and the CRA.

According to the taxpayer, certain internal accounting errors were made in the Companies' respective tax filings relating to the pricing of the inter-corporate administrative services and allocation of income between the two countries.  The result was an over-reporting of income for Canadian tax purposes and under-reporting of income for U.S. tax purposes for the 2000-2002 taxation years.2  A transfer pricing study was commissioned by TeleTech U.S. in 2003 to confirm the appropriateness of the revised pricing.

The Companies unilaterally took steps to retroactively reallocate income between TeleTech Canada and TeleTech U.S. by filing amended U.S. tax returns to reflect the revised pricing, requesting a downward adjustment to TeleTech Canada's operating profits, and by initiating requests for competent authority assistance for relief from double taxation.

The key events in TeleTech relevant to the mandamus issue are as follows:

Up to March 2006 - TeleTech U.S. filed amended U.S. tax returns resulting in an upward adjustment of income and sent a request to the IRS for relief under the Treaty from double taxation in the amount of USD $38.3 million.

May 11, 2006 - TeleTech Canada filed a request with the CRA for competent authority assistance (the "First Request") seeking relief from double taxation.

November 10, 2006 - The CRA denied the request (the "First Denial Letter") on the basis that an action by the CRA or IRS that resulted in double taxation was not present.  Had the request been accepted, it may have resulted in a refund being payable to TeleTech Canada in the range of USD $10-12 million.  The CRA advised in the First Denial Letter that it would reconsider its position in the event of future compliance activity by the CRA or the IRS.

December 13, 2006 - The CRA received a letter from the IRS (the "IRS Letter") advising that the IRS had "ultimately assessed" the amended tax returns as filed and therefore actions taken by the CRA and IRS had resulted in double taxation.  The IRS invited the CRA to participate in a MAP.  The CRA did not respond to the IRS Letter and did not notify the Companies of its receipt.

July 2008 - Following an audit, the IRS adjusted TeleTech U.S.' 2001 and 2002 returns resulting in an increase of gross income for both years by a total of USD $11,239,230.  The Companies did not inform the CRA of the results of the audit at this time.

December 17, 2009 - TeleTech Canada submitted a supplemental request to the CRA for competent authority assistance (the "Second Request") and advised of the outcome of the IRS audit.

May 11, 2011 - TeleTech Canada commenced the application for judicial review that was the subject matter of the current case.  This application was commenced on the belief that the CRA was refusing to consider the Second Request.  The application sought an order for mandamus from the Federal Court which, if granted, would compel the CRA to decide TeleTech Canada's application for competent authority assistance.  On consent, the application for judicial review was held in abeyance pending the CRA's determination of the Second Request.  The CRA ultimately denied TeleTech Canada's request (the "Second Denial Letter") on the basis that it had not received notification as required by the Treaty within six years from the end of the taxation years in issue and that TeleTech Canada's tax returns were statute barred from reassessment.

The Availability of Mandamus to Compel the Minister to Accept the Request

For taxpayers, the procedures and deadlines for judicial review depend on whether a taxpayer disagrees with a decision that the CRA has made or if the CRA is refusing to make a decision.  A mandamus order, which compels performance of a legal duty (i.e. compelling a decision to be made), is an extraordinary remedy not subject to any time limitation.  In contrast, to challenge a decision or order that has already been made by judicial review, an application for judicial review seeking certiorari must be filed within thirty days from the date the decision was made.  Generally, if a reviewable error has been committed in reaching a decision and certiorari is granted, the decision or order will be quashed or set aside and the parties restored to their original position.  As such, the Court should be within its jurisdiction to grant an order of mandamus compelling the CRA to consider a taxpayer's request for competent authority assistance.

At the Federal Court, TeleTech Canada argued that the CRA's actions were a continuing refusal to consider its request.  Madam Justice Mactavish disagreed and found that two discrete decisions were made by the First Denial Letter and Second Denial Letter and that each was subject to the thirty-day time limitation.  In her reasoning she emphasized two points.  Firstly, the timing for bringing the application for judicial review application, which was after the Second Request and before the CRA issued its Second Denial Letter.  Secondly, that TeleTech Canada was not seeking a determination by the CRA, but rather a specific outcome (i.e. that the CRA accept its request for competent authority assistance).  Jurisprudence has generally established that mandamus will not be granted to compel a specific decision or outcome where decision-making power is discretionary, as it was in this case under Article IX (1) and (3) of the Treaty.3  Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Seeking a mandamus order by framing the CRA's behaviour as "continuing conduct", and therefore a continuing failure to act rather than a decision not to act, was likely an attempt to bring the application for judicial review under the six-year limitation period contained in Article IX (3) of the Treaty.  The Federal Court noted that TeleTech U.S. may still seek relief from the IRS through Article IX (4) of the Treaty which provides an exception to the six-year limitation rule provided in paragraph (3).  However, the relief granted under paragraph (4), which is not obligatory, would only allow the IRS to grant unilateral relief from double taxation.  In other words, to withdraw the U.S. adjustment to the extent that it would give rise to double taxation.

TeleTech Canada's Application for Judicial Review held to be a Collateral Attack

The Federal Court found that TeleTech Canada's arguments amounted to a collateral attack of a prior decision (e.g. challenging the correctness of a decision through subsequent proceedings that do not have as their target the validity of the relevant decision or action).  Two discrete decisions in relation to the First Request and Second Request were made; each subject to the thirty-day limitation.  TeleTech Canada failed to challenge the First Denial Letter or Second Denial Letter by way of judicial review within the prescribed time limit and, in light of this, the Federal Court did not find in the taxpayer's favour.

Procedural Fairness and Legitimate Expectation

The Federal Court noted that no argument was advanced regarding a breach of procedural fairness or that the First Denial Letter created a legitimate expectation on TeleTech Canada's part that a process would be followed.4

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been recognized as a means to help the Court determine whether the procedures that were followed by the administrative decision maker respected the common law duty of fairness in the particular circumstances. 5  Legitimate expectations of procedures can arise from assurances or promises of public officials.  The statement in the First Denial Letter that the CRA would reconsider its position in the event of future compliance activity arguably could be seen to have created such a legitimate expectation of procedure in this instance.

It is speculative to postulate whether the argument that the CRA contravened its promise to reconsider would have produced a different outcome for the taxpayer, or whether there were other strategic or legal considerations at play.  However, the fact that the Federal Court itself raised the possibility of this argument suggests that it may have been persuasive in the present circumstances and that the taxpayer may have had success with such an argument in crafting its judicial review application.

Footnote

1 2013 FC 572.

2 It should be noted that the 2000 taxation year was not at issue in the application for judicial review.

3 Supra note 1 at para. 61.

4 Supra note 1 at para. 70.

5 See Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para. 28.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions