The Oil Drum: Canada | Income Trusts and the Canadian Energy Sector

52 comments on Income Trusts and the Canadian Energy Sector

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

JustZisGuy on November 21, 2006 - 2:35pm

I'm not defending the Tories on this, and I agree what they did is nasty and counter to your expectation of future income, but it is not retroactive! Retroactive means "taking effect from a date in the past". The change in taxation of existing trusts takes effect in the future. Past != future. It's not retroactive. Period.

Look, this sort of tinkering with the tax system happens all the time. There used to be a lifetime $100,000 capital gains exemption in Canada. It was repealed in 1994, just before I had a chance to use it. Annoying, yes, but not retroactive! (As I recall it wasn't retroactive, anyway. The point is that changing the rules may change what people expected to get and how they may have behaved in the past had they known what would happen, but that doesn't ipso facto make it a retroactive change).

(There is still a $500,000 capital gains exemption on the sale of "qualified small business corporation shares", I'm talking about an exemption that applied to any capital gain.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mbkennel on November 21, 2006 - 2:40pm

It's very unusual to make new policies which suddenly alter market value of major, widely held investments by declaring their fundamental business model to be illegal.

For instance, if the Federal government suddenly declared all extant municipal bonds to be subject to tax, what would the reaction be.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JustZisGuy on November 21, 2006 - 3:11pm

It's very unusual to make new policies which suddenly alter market value of major, widely held investments [..]

Right. I'm with you.

[..] by declaring their fundamental business model to be illegal.

Ummm, perhaps we need to buy everyone here a dictionary. They did no such thing. I sure hope income trusts aren't "illegal", anyway, because I own units in a bunch of 'em.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunlight on November 21, 2006 - 5:00pm

Last time I checked, the value of ALL financial assets is, the present discounted value of EXPECTED future cash flows. You don't buy stock for past earnings, but for future earnings. The fomula is: PV = cf1/(1+r1) + cf2/(1+r2) +...+ cfn/(1 +rn)

where PV = present value
cf1 = cash flow received in period 1
r1 = risk free interest rate (ie Tbill rate for example) in period 1

In case anyone thinks this is a just a theoreretical exercise, let me tell you what happened to a prominent Canadian energy trust when word of the retroactive taxation hit the wires. The Enerplus Resources Trust closed at $54.30 per share on October 31, the last pre-announcement day. Two days later on November 2 it closed at $39. Similarly the PennWest Energy Trust closed at $37.52 pre announcement and $29.80 on November 2. Slashing expected future returns slashes current value.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunlight on November 21, 2006 - 5:27pm

While my point about slashing future value equals slashing current value still stands, I need to correct the formula quoted above.

PV = cf1/(1+r1) + cf2/(1+r2)*2 +...+ cfn/(1+rn)*n

where the double asterisks denote "raised to the power of." Thus the divisor of the second term to the right of the equal sign should read, (1+ r2), squared.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JustZisGuy on November 22, 2006 - 12:01am

Slashing expected future returns slashes current value.

Yes, so? The same thing happens when the trust itself announces a cut in distributions. Is such an announcement "retroactive"? Of course not - it affects distributions in the future. The proposal to start taxing distributions in four years is also something that takes effect in the future.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

When you invest you accept a number of risks. I have been affected by the proposed changes to the tune of ... oh probably more money than anyone else who is whinging about it here. Yes, it's a bitch, but you can't say you weren't warned:

From Enerplus' March 7 2006 prospectus, page 2:

The actual amount distributed will depend on numerous factors including: the financial performance of the subsidiaries of the Fund, debt obligations,
commodity prices, production levels, working capital requirements, future capital requirements, applicable law and other factors beyond the control of the Fund.

(I added bold face to highlight critical words)

Or how about their 2005 annual report, page 86:

Government royalties, income tax laws, environmental laws and regulatory requirements can have a significant financial and operational impact on Enerplus. [..]
[..] In the January 2006 election, the Canadian Liberal government was replaced by a Conservative government. Both parties are on record as stating that they do not intend to change the tax treatment of trusts. Nevertheless, there is always a risk that the Canadian government may reconsider its position and propose changes to the tax regime that could negatively impact the Fund.

(I added bold face to highlight critical words)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.