{"id":49172,"date":"2026-04-20T11:11:02","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:11:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=49172"},"modified":"2026-04-20T11:11:04","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:11:04","slug":"husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/","title":{"rendered":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Cross\u2011border tax planning typically assumes that if you structure legal agreements correctly and satisfy a tax treaty\u2019s wording, a reduced withholding rate will follow where applicable. Husky Energy Inc.\u2019s (\u201c<strong>Husky<\/strong>\u201d) fight with the Canada Revenue Agency suggests that assumption may no longer be safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/ca\/fca\/doc\/2025\/2025fca176\/2025fca176.html?resultId=aaf40f0944dd4692bc945143dcdaf76c&amp;searchId=2026-04-08T09:32:33:671\/25d59bed0133465788093edd1f6fcc6a\"><em>Canada v. Hutchison Whampoa Luxembourg Holdings S.\u00c0.R.L.<\/em><\/a> (\u201c<strong><em>Husky FCA<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), the Federal Court of Appeal (the \u201c<strong>FCA<\/strong>\u201d) sided with the Crown and denied treaty benefits on dividends paid to Luxembourg entities. Husky has now asked the Supreme Court of Canada (the &#8220;SCC&#8221;) for leave to appeal, putting core questions about beneficial ownership, treaty interpretation, and securities lending structures squarely on the table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For in\u2011house tax and finance teams, the stakes are practical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Can you still rely on the classic <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em> approach to beneficial ownership?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>How much weight will courts give to OECD Commentary and \u201ceconomic substance\u201d when applying treaty rates?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What does this mean for your current withholding processes and documentation on cross\u2011border payments?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The discussion below walks through the facts, Husky\u2019s key arguments, the Crown\u2019s response, and what all of this could mean for your existing and future structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What are the facts in the Husky Energy case?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky, a Canadian corporation, declared and paid two significant dividends in 2003. Immediately prior to these payments, three Barbados-resident shareholders (the \u201c<strong>Barbcos<\/strong>\u201d), lent their shares to related Luxembourg entities (collectively, the \u201c<strong>Luxcos<\/strong>\u201d), under securities lending agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The dividends were paid to the Luxcos, which subsequently returned both the shares and dividend equivalent amounts to the Barbcos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky applied the reduced withholding tax rate available under Article X(2) of the <em>Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Treaty<\/em> (the <em>\u201c<\/em><strong>Luxembourg Treaty<\/strong>\u201d). <a href=\"#_ftn1\" id=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Minister of National Revenue reassessed on the basis that the Barbcos were the beneficial owners of the dividends, asserting that the 15% rate <a href=\"https:\/\/publications.gc.ca\/site\/eng\/9.823119\/publication.html\"><em>Canada-Barbados Income Tax Treaty<\/em><\/a> (the \u201c<strong>Barbados Treaty<\/strong>\u201d) applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What issues does Husky\u2019s leave application raise?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky\u2019s application raises three doctrinal concerns and one broader issue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">a. How did <em>Husky FCA<\/em> depart from established jurisprudence?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that the FCA decision conflicts with established authority, particularly <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car Inc. v. Canada,<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn2\" id=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> <em>Canada v. Alta Energy Luxembourg S.A.R.L.,<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn3\" id=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> and <em>Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. Canada.<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn4\" id=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> In its submission, Husky maintains that the FCA:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>misapplied the legal test for beneficial ownership;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>improperly relied on OECD materials; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>departed from settled principles governing the legal characterization of transactions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky contends that these departures undermine certainty in the application of Canada\u2019s tax treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">b. Did <em>Husky FCA<\/em> misinterpret the <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em> test for beneficial ownership?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky\u2019s central argument is that <em>Husky FCA<\/em> altered the <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em> test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Under <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em>, beneficial ownership is determined by reference to indicia of ownership \u2013 use, enjoyment, risk, and control \u2013 and generally remains with the recipient unless that entity acts as a mere conduit with no discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky identifies three specific errors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Risk \u2013 The FCA treated the Luxcos\u2019 hedging activities as demonstrating an absence of risk. Husky argues the opposite: hedging presupposes the existence of risk.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use and Enjoyment \u2013 The FCA concluded that the Luxcos did not meaningfully use the dividends. Husky argues that this introduces a subjective and undefined \u201cmeaningfulness\u201d standard not grounded in <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contractual Obligations \u2013 The FCA discounted the Luxco\u2019s legal obligations to return dividend equivalent amounts and the Luxcos\u2019 ability to dispose of the Husky shares.&nbsp; Husky maintains that absent a finding of sham, such contractual terms must be respected.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>More broadly, Husky assets that the FCA replaced an established legal test with an inquiry focused on economic results and arbitrary subjective assessments, thereby eroding predictability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">c. Did <em>Husky FCA<\/em> depart from <em>Alta Energy <\/em>and misuse OECD commentary?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that the FCA improperly relied on the 2003 OECD Commentary and related materials to interpret the Luxembourg Treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Its position is that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Treaty interpretation must reflect the intentions of the contracting states at the time the treaty was negotiated and concluded;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>subsequent OECD Commentary may assist interpretation but cannot expand a treaty\u2019s scope; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the 1998 Commentary \u2013 relevant at the time \u2013 did not introduce a broad anti-avoidance purpose into the concept of beneficial ownership.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">d. Did <em>Husky FCA<\/em> depart from <em>Continental Bank<\/em> on legal substance?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that the FCA departed from established principles governing legal substance.&nbsp; Pursuant to <em>Continental Bank:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>once it has been determined that a transaction is not a sham, the legal substance of an agreement is to be determined based on the language used by the parties and their intentions regarding the legal effect of the agreement;<a id=\"_ftnref5\" href=\"#_ftn5\">[5]<\/a>\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>where the parties meet the requirements of the legal relationships they purport to create, those legal relationships are valid and binding;<a id=\"_ftnref6\" href=\"#_ftn6\">[6]<\/a> and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the legal effect of an agreement must be determined based on the legal rights and obligations of the parties, not whether the parties <em>intended<\/em> to exercise those rights.<a id=\"_ftnref7\" href=\"#_ftn7\">[7]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that the FCA instead redefined what constitutes a \u201ctrue\u201d securities lending agreement, imposing requirements, such as collateralization, not found in the Income Tax Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This, in Husky\u2019s view, amounts to an impermissible recharacterization of <em>bona fide<\/em> legal relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">e. What is Husky\u2019s broader argument regarding withholding tax?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky also raises a broader issue concerning the interaction between domestic withholding tax rules and treaty provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tax Court of Canada (the \u201c<strong>TCC<\/strong>\u201d) had held that the Barbados Treaty did not apply, resulting in a 25% withholding tax under the Income Tax Act. Husky argues that this conflicts with Parliament\u2019s intention that treaty-reduced rates prevail where applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that this conflict between the TCC\u2019s interpretation of the term \u201cpays\u201d in subsection 212(2) and \u201cpaid\u201d in Canada\u2019s tax treaties \u2013 and the well-established interpretation of these terms \u2013 must be resolved so that Canadian resident payers can determine their withholding obligations and the entities from which withholding tax may be recovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What is the Crown arguing?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Crown maintains that the FCA correctly applied settled law and reached a result consistent with the purpose of Canada\u2019s withholding tax regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Key points from the Crown\u2019s argument are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the FCA properly applied both <em>Pr\u00e9vost Car <\/em>and <em>Alta Energy<\/em>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the outcome reflects the intended allocation of taxing rights, particularly given that Luxembourg did not tax the dividends;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>OECD Commentary may be used as an interpretive aid, including subsequent commentary; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Husky FCA<\/em> is based on the very specific and unique facts and will not impose undue burdens on Canadian payors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Regarding administrative concerns, the Crown argues that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Non-resident recipients are best positioned to establish treaty entitlement; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Canadian payors can withhold at the statutory rate where uncertainty exists, with refunds available if necessary.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Crown also raises alternative arguments, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Luxcos may not have satisfied voting requirements for the reduced withholding rate because under the securities lending agreements, the Luxcos were required to seek instruction from the Barbcos on how to vote, and Husky\u2019s board of directors never discussed a change of control, indicating that voting rights had not in fact been transferred; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The GAAR could apply if beneficial ownership were found in favor of the Luxcos.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What is Husky\u2019s response to the crown?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky disputes that <em>Husky FCA<\/em> reflects a straightforward application of settled law.&nbsp; Its reply emphasizes three points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. Doctrinal shift<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision introduces a broad anti-avoidance overlay to beneficial ownership and substitutes economic substance for legal analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">2.  Misapplication of <em>Alta Energy<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky reiterates that reliance on post-treaty OECD Commentary contradicts the interpretive approach endorsed by the SCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. Practical consequences<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Husky FCA<\/em> creates uncertainty for Canadian payors who may lack access to the information necessary to assess:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>risk allocation;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>intended and actual use of income receipts; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>broader economic outcomes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky argues that this uncertainty may:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>discourage foreign investment;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>complicate withholding compliance; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>lead to systemic over-withholding, creating inefficiencies and barriers to cross-border capital flows.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Husky\u2019s leave application raises significant issues concerning treaty interpretation, domestic tax law, and commercial certainty.&nbsp; At its core, the dispute concerns whether beneficial ownership remains a legal test grounded in rights and obligations, or whether it has evolved into a broader inquiry informed by economic substance and anti-avoidance considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The SCC\u2019s decision on the leave application will determine whether these questions warrant further clarification at the highest level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If you have questions regarding withholding tax obligations or cross-border securities lending agreements, Miller Thomson\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/expertise\/tax\/corporate-tax\/\">Corporate Tax<\/a> lawyers can provide tailored advice and assist in navigating the legal and practical implications arising from decisions such as <em>Husky FCA.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" id=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital<\/em>, Can.T.S. 2000 No. 22, enacted in Canada by the <em>Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999<\/em>, S.C. 2000, c. 11, Sch. IX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" id=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2009 FCA 57 (FCA) (\u201c<em>Pr\u00e9vost Car<\/em>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" id=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2021 SCC 49 (\u201c<em>Alta Energy<\/em>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" id=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [1998] 2 SCR 298 (\u201c<em>Continental Bank<\/em>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" id=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>Continental<\/em> <em>Bank <\/em>at paragraph 21; Husky\u2019s Leave Application at paragraph 46.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" id=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Husky\u2019s Leave Application at paragraph 46.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" id=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Husky\u2019s Leave Application at paragraph 49.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cross\u2011border tax planning typically assumes that if you structure legal agreements correctly and satisfy a tax treaty\u2019s wording, a reduced withholding rate will follow where applicable. Husky Energy Inc.\u2019s (\u201cHusky\u201d) fight with the Canada Revenue Agency suggests that assumption may no longer be safe. In Canada v. Hutchison Whampoa Luxembourg Holdings S.\u00c0.R.L. (\u201cHusky FCA\u201d), the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":122,"featured_media":31132,"parent":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[551],"insight-format":[416],"class_list":["post-49172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-corporate-tax"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1098\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sebastian Vives\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sebastian Vives\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sebastian Vives\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/be05481ca4ee617c24b33993ade4c881\"},\"headline\":\"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\"},\"wordCount\":1541,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Corporate Tax\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"ItemPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\",\"name\":\"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1098,\"caption\":\"man and woman sitting at a table with documents and an open laptop\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"description\":\"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"width\":380,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Miller Thomson\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/be05481ca4ee617c24b33993ade4c881\",\"name\":\"Sebastian Vives\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9c50194d3d05da0f277cc6ce0c163d04a4150aed35e0d008c0cba4866c37cc31?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9c50194d3d05da0f277cc6ce0c163d04a4150aed35e0d008c0cba4866c37cc31?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sebastian Vives\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson","description":"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson","og_description":"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1098,"url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sebastian Vives","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@millerthomson","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sebastian Vives","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/"},"author":{"name":"Sebastian Vives","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/be05481ca4ee617c24b33993ade4c881"},"headline":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership?","datePublished":"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/"},"wordCount":1541,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg","articleSection":["Corporate Tax"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":["WebPage","ItemPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/","name":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership? | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg","datePublished":"2026-04-20T15:11:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-20T15:11:04+00:00","description":"Husky Energy\u2019s treaty fight over hundreds of millions in dividends is now headed toward the SCC. See how beneficial ownership and withholding rules may shift","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_tax_meeting.jpg","width":1920,"height":1098,"caption":"man and woman sitting at a table with documents and an open laptop"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/corporate-tax\/husky-energys-withholding-tax-battle-will-the-scc-rewrite-the-rules-on-beneficial-ownership\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Husky Energy\u2019s withholding tax battle: Will the SCC rewrite the rules on beneficial ownership?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","name":"Miller Thomson","description":"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Miller Thomson","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","width":380,"height":50,"caption":"Miller Thomson"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/be05481ca4ee617c24b33993ade4c881","name":"Sebastian Vives","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9c50194d3d05da0f277cc6ce0c163d04a4150aed35e0d008c0cba4866c37cc31?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9c50194d3d05da0f277cc6ce0c163d04a4150aed35e0d008c0cba4866c37cc31?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sebastian Vives"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/122"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49172"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49172\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49239,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49172\/revisions\/49239"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31132"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49172"},{"taxonomy":"insight-format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight-format?post=49172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}