Counter letter: Tax strategy in the context of a real estate transaction?


by

The court, faced with a prima facie case of counter letter, had to decide whether Elsie Monereau, plaintiff, remained the true owner of a property, despite certain transactions suggesting otherwise1.

Indeed, on February 13th, the Court of Québec ruled in a tax dispute between two taxpayers and Revenu Québec (“RQ”). The court had to analyze the validity of certain notices of assessment issued in the names of Elsie Monereau (“Monereau”) and Fred Marie Béliard (“Béliard”), the plaintiffs. In this text, we will briefly examine this case and the legal conclusions drawn from it.

Summary of Facts

On January 22nd, 2015, and January 23rd, 2017, RQ issued assessment notices resulting from capital gains and taxable benefits that were not declared by Monereau and Béliard in 2011 and 2012. According to the RQ, these gains and benefits resulted from real estate transactions between Béliard and Société 9218-8242 Québec Inc. (“the Company”) in 2011, and between the Company and Monereau in 2012.

In 1996, while Monereau and her husband, Dominique Gattereau (“Gattereau”), were owners of a property, their family residence, the Royal Bank of Canada filed a notice of exercise of mortgage rights due to a delay in their mortgage payments. Unable to find another lender to cope with their financial difficulties, Béliard, Monereau’s brother-in-law, agreed to acquire the residence on paper through a mortgage loan he obtained from the Bank of Montreal. In reality, the couple and Béliard agreed that Monereau and Gattereau would continue to own the property, provided that they made payments for property taxes, mortgage, and all maintenance related to the house.

This agreement worked smoothly until Monereau and Gattereau were again late in mortgage payments, leading the Bank of Montreal, in 2010, to refuse to renew the loan to Béliard. They then turned to a private lender who agreed to issue financing with a non-renewable one-year term, provided that the residence be held by a corporation, to facilitate seizure, if necessary. Consequently, Béliard, his wife, and Monereau formed the Company, of which they collectively held all the share capital. It was this same company that acquired the property on June 17th, 2011.

Just prior to loan maturity, Monereau managed to obtain a mortgage loan from Compagnie de Fiducie AFG. This financing allowed the Company to fully repay the private lender and sell the property to Monereau. In 2012, for the first time since 1996, Monereau regained “title” to the building.

Decision of the Court of Québec

In this case, Monereau and Béliard challenged the validity of the notices of assessment issued by Revenu Québec, which resulted from capital gains and taxable benefits arising from real estate transactions in 2011 and 2012. Indeed, they claim that, even though “on paper,” Monereau was not the owner of the property between 1996 and 2012, she had always remained so in fact, in accordance with the continuous intention of the plaintiffs.

[65] The notion of counter letter in Quebec tax law is well-known, and case law and doctrine abound on this subject.

[66] Sections 1451 and 1452 of the Civil Code of Québec […] indicate the following:

      1. Simulation exists where the parties agree to express their true intent, not in an apparent contract, but in a secret contract, also called a counter letter.
        Between the parties, a counter letter prevails over an apparent contract.
      1. Third persons in good faith may, according to their interest, avail themselves of the apparent contract or the counter letter; however, where conflicts of interest arise between them, preference is given to the person who avails himself of the apparent contract.

[…]

[67] […] When tax authorities act as assessors, they are not considered third parties within the meaning of Section 1452 C.c.Q., their role being to assess the real legal relationships between the parties and to assess taxpayers based on this reality. 2 [Our translation]

The notion of counter letter being thus explained by the Court, it must be understood that the role of Revenu Québec was then to question the true links existing between the different parties at the time of the transactions, rather than relying solely on the apparent contracts, namely those of purchase and sale of the family residence.

[82] To answer this question, it is necessary, first, to determine whether the evidence demonstrates that the parties to the transactions intended for the Property not to leave Monereau’s assets. Subsequently, it is necessary to determine whether this agreement between Monereau and Béliard is binding on Revenu Québec.

[83] […] the answer to these two questions must be in the affirmative.

[…]

[85] Thus, since the evidence demonstrates that the Property had not left Monereau’s assets, she did not, in law, at that time, have the obligation to declare the transactions.

[…]

[91] In these cases, neither Béliard nor Monereau sought […] to take advantage of either the apparent contracts (the notarial deeds) or the counter-letter.3 [Our translation]

Following this complex analysis, the court ultimately annulled the assessment notices issued by Revenu Québec, granting the request of the plaintiffs, Béliard and Monereau. However, it should be noted that since 2020, the law provides for the obligation to disclose any counter letter. Thus, if the transactions had occurred within the last 4 years, Béliard and Monereau would have been obliged to disclose the true agreement between them, under penalty of contravening the Taxation Act4 .

In conclusion, it is possible, under certain circumstances, to use the counter-letter as part of well-executed tax planning. However, it must be understood that the true legal relationships existing between the parties, in the form of a counter letter, must be disclosed. Tax authorities can then ensure that assessments are made based on the real situation of the parties, and not solely based on the apparent contract. It is therefore wise to seek proper advice from legal professionals to ensure the best representation of one’s interests within the Quebec and Canadian legislative frameworks.

Written in collaboration with Laury-Ann Bernier, LL.M.

1  Béliard v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2024 QCCQ 405.
2  Id., par. 65-67.
3  Id., par. 82-91.
4  Taxation Act, RLRQ, c. I-3, art. 1079.8.6.4.