See Also
Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd. v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1177 [at 967], 2011 TCC 232
Pizzitelli J. found (at [paras. 102-103) that the limitation periods in Articles IX(3) and XXVII(3) of the Canada-Barbados Tax Treaty did not apply because the taxpayer was a Barbados International Business Company, which Article XXX expressly excludes from application of the Treaty. He also noted (at para. 104) that given that Article IX(2) and (3) dealt specifically with transfer pricing adjustments "one must question the applicability of another, more general limitation period found in a different part of the Treaty, such as Article XXVII(3), especially where that other limitation period is similar."
Meyer v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 2393, 2004 TCC 199
The taxpayer, who was a U.S. citizen resident in Canada, did not claim treaty benefits when filing his U.S. return, with the result that his U.S.-source pension income was subject to U.S. income tax at graduated rates rather than the treaty-reduced rate of 15%.
In finding that competent authority relief was not available to the taxpayer, Hershfield J. noted that "in self-assessing systems, it is incumbent on taxpayers to file on the basis prescribed by their circumstances".
Administrative Policy
86 C.R. - Q.38
where the IRS alleges that a U.S. subsidiary overpaid its Canadian parent for goods, it is not necessary to refund the alleged overpayment in order to initiate competent authority negotiations (Article XXVI of U.S. Convention).
80 C.R. - Q.6
Discussion of when RC makes available information concerning agreements.
Articles
Martin Marcone, "Resolution Procedures for Intergovernmental Transfer Pricing Disputes: Part 2", 23 Can. Current Tax", Volume 23, Number 12, September 2013:
Taxpayer's discretion in arbitration (p.138)
The MAP [mutual agreement procedure] set out in the Canada-U.S. Treaty above is an example of an arbitral mechanism yielding a binding result only if the taxpayer agrees with it. Arbitration may therefore not end the matter in this framework, as an unsatisfied taxpayer can effectively reject the arbitrator's decision and pursue the matter domestically. By contrast, the MAP set out in the Canada-Ireland Treaty provides that cases may only be submitted for arbitration if the taxpayer agrees in writing to be bound by the decision of the arbitration board.
The OECD Arbitration Model protects the taxpayer's discretion by allowing it to refuse to accept the "mutual agreement that implements the arbitration decision" rather than, for example, setting as a precondition to arbitration the taxpayer's agreement to be bound by the decision. [fn 87: Despite other discretionary features, the tax treaty between Canada and Mexico sets as a condition of arbitration that the taxpayer agrees to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. …] However, as indicated above, a precondition to arbitration is that a court in either country has not ruled upon the unresolved issues. The OECD Model Tax Convention therefore supports a procedure whereby treaty arbitration is engaged only first by a taxpayer, who may then resort to domestic remedies if it is dissatisfied with the result of such arbitration.
Richard G. Tremblay, "Canada-U.S. Treaty Fifth Protocol: Binding Arbitration", Canadian Current Tax, Vol. 18, No. 11, p. 1, August 2008
Discussion of Annex A.