Canada: Canada’s 2014 budget eliminates tax benefits of immigration trusts

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Canada’s 2014 budget eliminates tax benefits of immigration trusts

leopardi.jpg

carbone.jpg

John Leopardi


Alexandra Carbone

The government announced in Canada's 2014 budget that it would be introducing new measures to further prevent the use of non-resident trusts to avoid Canadian income tax, notably the proposed elimination of the Canadian tax benefits of immigration trusts. Where a Canadian resident contributes property to a non-resident trust, the trust may be deemed to be a resident of Canada for Canadian tax purposes. Before the budget, an exemption from the deemed-resident trust rule was available where the contributor was an individual who had resided in Canada for a total period of not more than 60 months; non-resident trusts which fell within this exemption were referred to as immigration trusts. Where a trust qualified for the 60-month exemption, it would not be subject to Canadian tax on its foreign-source income for the relevant period. Whereas individuals resident in Canada are normally subject to tax on their worldwide income, the 60-month exemption essentially allowed individuals immigrating to Canada to shelter their foreign source investment income from Canadian tax for up to five years by establishing a non-resident trust and transferring their income-producing assets to the trust prior.

As a result of the 60-month tax exemption, Canadian resident beneficiaries of immigration trusts indirectly obtained a tax benefit that was not available to other Canadian residents not earning income through immigration trusts. The Canadian government stated in the budget, "the 60-month exemption raises tax fairness, tax integrity and tax neutrality concerns".

The proposal amends the non-resident trust rules to remove the 60-month exemption for immigration trusts, generally for taxation years ending on or after February 11 2014. Consequently, an immigration trust will be deemed resident in Canada and subject to taxation on its worldwide income starting in 2015. Limited relief phase-in rules apply in particular circumstances. Individuals who immigrated to Canada and established an immigration trust arrangement should revisit their tax planning in light of the proposed measures.

John Leopardi (john.leopardi@blakes.com)

Tel: +1 514 982 5030; +1 514 982 5030
Alexandra Carbone (alexandra.carbone@blakes.com)

Tel: +1 514 982 5034

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Website: www.blakes.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
Gift this article