Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Canada’s most-awarded
newsroom for a reason
Stay informed for a
lot less, cancel anytime
“Exemplary reporting on
COVID-19” – Herman L
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Cameco's uranium mine in Cigar Lake, Sask. on Sept. 23, 2015.

Liam Richards/The Canadian Press

For every day of his 10-year tenure at the head of Cameco Corp. , Tim Gitzel has been saddled with a sprawling, costly and potentially ruinous tax dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency over how the uranium producer dealt with its overseas profits.

That dispute was punctuated, if not yet quite ended, on Thursday when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the CRA’s appeal of lower-court decisions that had sided with the company.

The heart of the long-running dispute is transfer pricing, or how multinational companies such as Cameco determine what prices their subsidiaries charge each other for goods and services, with those decisions influencing how much tax is paid in various jurisdictions. Tax lawyers say the Supreme Court decision is a clear repudiation of the CRA’s case, and what they see as an aggressive bid by the agency to rewrite transfer-price agreements that it deemed to be enabling tax avoidance.

Story continues below advertisement

The 13-year legal fight cost $60-million, tied up $785-million in cash and lines of credit and took a toll on Cameco’s morale and reputation, said Mr. Gitzel, president and chief executive officer of the Saskatchewan uranium producer. “It’s been very tough on our company, on our employees, especially, and on our balance sheet,” he said in an interview.

The fight isn’t over yet. The case the Supreme Court declined to hear, thereby upholding the June, 2020, decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, dealt with just $11-million in tax debt for only the 2003, 2005 and 2006 tax years. With further legal avenues exhausted, the CRA will have to return $5.5-million to Cameco, plus up to $28.15-million in costs.

But the CRA has also challenged subsequent tax years through to 2014, with a potential tax liability as much as $2.15-billion. And so far, the company does not know how quickly its remaining $779.5-million will be released by the CRA. (That amount reflects the 50 per cent of taxes, interest and penalties owing that large corporations must pay ahead of time to challenge a tax assessment.)

But Mr. Gitzel is celebrating “strong and unequivocal decisions from three levels of court” that have validated Cameco’s contention that its move two decades ago to set up a Swiss subsidiary to sell its uranium in Europe was a legitimate business decision, and not a sham designed to evade taxes, as the CRA alleged.

Under the Cameco structure, it sold uranium to its subsidiary at a fixed price, reflecting market conditions of the early 2000s. In later years, the price of uranium rose substantially, generating profits for the Swiss subsidiary that were then taxed in that country, at a lower rate than would have been the case in Canada.

The CRA then challenged that arrangement, saying that the fixed-price arrangement was not a true arm’s length arrangement and had been set up only to avoid taxes. In doing so, it deployed a rarely used power called the pricing recharacterization rule, a part of the Income Tax Act that allows it to ignore commercial arrangements that a company has struck.

The CRA declined a request for an interview. But in a statement, the agency said it will review the decision in consultation with the finance and justice departments, adding it “considers this an important issue as it relates to international profit shifting and erosion of Canada’s tax base which undermines the government’s ability to provide benefits and services to Canadians.”

Story continues below advertisement

Cameco’s victory came in part from a narrow legal distinction in how transfer pricing is assessed. The CRA said the standard should be whether Cameco would have made an identical arrangement with an unrelated company. But Cameco contended that the proper approach would be to assess whether any two parties might come to such an arrangement. The company won that point both in the Tax Court of Canada, and on appeal.

Steve Suarez, a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, said the CRA’s position was an aggressive interpretation and noted that the pricing recharacterization rule is a rarely used power. Mr. Suarez said it’s important to understand that the use of transfer pricing by multinationals is not synonymous with tax avoidance. To the contrary, it’s a necessary mechanism of international business and part of complying with tax law, he said.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal from the CRA is a clear victory for Cameco, he said. “That’s pretty much a KO. Not even a TKO, I would say.”

Christopher Montes, a partner and tax lawyer at Felesky Flynn in Calgary, said the CRA has been motivated in part by discussions by tax agencies of members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development aimed at restricting companies from using transfer pricing to shift profits between jurisdictions.

Mr. Montes said the decision reins in the power of the CRA, but added that the process is onerous, in particular the requirement that larger companies pay 50 per cent of the amount under dispute to fight a reassessment. “It can really jeopardize an entity,” he said.

Mr. Suarez agreed with that sentiment, saying that the cost of a protracted tax fight can prove to be prohibitive. “Not every taxpayer has the resources and courage that Cameco has.”

Story continues below advertisement

Tax and Spend examines the intricacies and oddities of taxation and government spending.

Subscribe to the weekly Tax and Spend newsletter here.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies