Newsletters

790

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

790

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

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 […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

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”), […]