| Summary: | Canada and the Netherlands have developed different anti-avoidance techniques. On 13 September 1987, a new general anti-avoidance rule came into effect in Canada. The scope of application of this new rule remains uncertain. Some writers have suggested that the rule incorporates the business purpose test and the step transaction doctrine, while others have contended that section 245 is a version of the abuse of rights doctrine. After a comparative analysis of Canadian and Dutch anti-avoidance techniques, it is suggested that section 245 is a Canadian version of the Dutch judicial doctrine of fraus legis. The two conditions for the application of both instruments, namely that the transaction was entered into with the motive or purpose to avoid tax, and that the avoidance transaction offends the object and spirit of the Act, are in fact the same.
|
|---|
