Newsletters

778

Update on the Requirement to Disclose Your Prête-Nom or Nominee Agreements to Revenu Québec

As previously explained in our August 15, 2019 newsletter, Revenu Québec announced new rules on May 17, 2019 requiring the disclosure of all nominee agreements. The application of those rules was suspended until regulations could be adopted. Bill 42 implementing these rules was made final on September 24, 2020, and those rules are now in effect (An Act to give effect to fiscal measures announced in the Budget Speech delivered on 21 March 2019 and to various other measures, SQ 2020, c 16).

Whether or not they already had to be disclosed to Revenu Québec in the provincial corporate income tax return (CO-17-T), ALL Québec taxpayers must now disclose ALL nominee agreements that fall into the following two categories:

  • All nominee agreements signed on or after May 17, 2019, which must be disclosed within the earlier of (i) December 23, 2020 and (ii) 90 days from the date of signature; and
  • All nominee agreements signed before May 17, 2019 but which have income tax consequences that continue after that date (for example, as to the deduction of expenses, the attribution of rental income, the imposition of a capital gain, claiming the principal residence exemption, etc.), which must be disclosed by or before December 23, 2020.

Nominee agreements signed before May 17, 2019 which do not have any continuing tax consequences after that date do not need to be disclosed under these new rules.

The disclosure must be made by completing and filing form TP-1079.PN. The information to be disclosed includes the date of the nominee agreement, the identity of all the parties, a full description of the transaction (or the series of transactions) covered by the nominee agreement and the identity of any person or entity for which there are resulting tax consequences, as well as a copy of any written document setting out the arrangement. Disclosure by any party to the nominee agreement covers all parties to it.

Failure to disclose your nominee agreement can result in an initial penalty of $1,000 plus an additional daily penalty of $100 (up to a maximum total penalty of $5,000). As well, Revenu Québec can suspend your tax assessment period, which means that prescription does not begin to run on its tax claims against you.

For more information on these new rules, and for assistance in preparing the required disclosure materials, please contact one of our following professionals:

Martin Lord mlord@rsslex.com 514 393-4041
Sharon G. Druker sgdruker@rsslex.com 514 393-4014
Geneviève Goulet ggoulet@rsslex.com 514 393-7422

778

Authors

Sharon G. Druker, Ad. E.

Lawyer, Partner and Head of the Corporate Services Department

Geneviève Goulet

Lawyer, Partner and Co-chair of the Business Law Group

Articles in the same category

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]