Two decades later, the CRA continues to test the link between borrowing and income in financing structures, often under s. 20(1)(c)(i). The logic in Ludco still governs how those challenges are read.
Peter Aprile and Yasmin Malik revisit a landmark Supreme Court decision through a “mechanics versus interpretation” lens to show how courts read purpose and outcome, and what ultimately determines success in most tax disputes.
Ludco confirms that an ancillary income purpose can satisfy section 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Court read the Ludmers’ borrowing, income, and gains as a coherent economic pattern; evidence that intention held under scrutiny.
Control under CRA or judicial pressure depends less on income size than on the alignment between financial behaviour, returns, and stated purpose.
Decided in 2001, Ludco v. Canada remains one of the most cited cases on interest deductibility and interpretive alignment.
Through their holding company, Ludco Enterprises, the Ludmer family borrowed about $6 million to buy shares in two offshore investment companies between 1977 and 1980. The funds paid modest dividends and were expected to produce long-term capital gains.
Over eight years, Ludco paid roughly $6 million in interest, earned about $600,000 in dividends, and realized gains exceeding $9 million. The Minister denied the interest deductions, arguing that the loans served a tax-avoidance purpose.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that earning income, even as an ancillary purpose, satisfied s. 20(1)(c)(i). The Court emphasized that the borrowing purpose must be read through the taxpayer’s economic narrative, not a mechanical profit test.
Section 20(1)(c)(i) sits at the boundary between mechanical compliance and interpretation.
The courts test whether the pattern of use and return aligns with an income-earning purpose.
Ludco shows that interpretive coherence, not arguments about the mechanical alignment with the Income Tax Act, determines whether taxpayers will successfully overturn the CRA’s reassessments in these cases.
The Ludmers’ financial behaviour matched their declared purpose. The framing, submissions, and evidence established that the borrowing, income, and gain followed a coherent trajectory. The taxpayer’s conduct and pattern were deliberate, continuous, and commercially plausible.
The Minister’s position reduced “income” to “profit.” The Court rejected that mechanical reading, confirming that “income” in s. 20(1)(c)(i) means income subject to tax, not net profit.
The Court’s analysis and decision shifted the focus from mechanical sufficiency to interpretive discipline. The case turned on the Court's focus on the consistency between facts, behaviour, and purpose as the real test of control. Ludco shows that coherence holds against a CRA challenge and withstands litigation: the taxpayer’s purpose was established because their financial story matched their evidence under cross-examination.
In disputes over intention, the result of the case will turn on whether financial behaviour forms a coherent economic pattern. Success does not turn on technical compliance alone. When taxpayers integrate intention, structure, and evidence to form a coherent narrative, the courts will accept the taxpayer’s position and reject the CRA’s avoidance arguments.
Two decades after Ludco, the same interpretive lens continues to shape how the CRA challenges financing structures and interest deductibility, especially in cross-border or mixed-purpose arrangements.
When intention, structure, and evidence are shaped with discipline and coherence, the position holds under CRA pressure and remains defensible on every level.
Case Reference: Ludco Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 SCC 62