Newsletters

811

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

811

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

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]