The authors discuss R v DAC Investment Holdings Inc., 2026 FCA 35, rev’g 2024 TCC 63. They conclude that, in a GAAR analysis, an overly-broad characterization of a provision or a mere description of its effect will not correctly express its object, spirit and purpose (the “OSP” in GAAR jargon).
LPC editorial note: The latter principle seems clear enough, but what is the process for determining the correct level of abstraction when formulating the “OSP”?
Justin Ng and Micky Hoskin “GAAR and the Limits of CCPC Planning: The FCA Redraws the Line in DAC Investment” Tax for the Owner-Manager 26:2 (April 2026)
