Skip to content.
This is a photo of Anu Koshal




Contact by email at [email protected]

t. +1 416-601-7991


Law School

University of Toronto

Bar Admission

Ontario, 2014

An experienced and versatile litigator, Anu helps clients resolve complex, high-stakes tax disputes.

Anu Koshal is a partner in our Toronto office. He represents leading corporations and financial institutions in significant tax disputes across a variety of industries. 

Anu has an active trial and appellate practice. He represents clients before the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, and provincial trial and appellate courts across the country. He regularly prepares submissions on behalf of clients to tax authorities at both the audit and objection stage of an assessment. 

According to Chambers Canada: Canada’s Leading Lawyers for Business, clients describe Anu as “extremely impressive”, “a superstar in evolution”, “personable and dedicated”, “very capable”, and as having “a very strong analytical and strategic legal mind”.

" “Over the course of my career I have been involved in many complex litigation matters and worked closely with some of the most senior litigation lawyers in the country. I have no hesitation in saying that Anu is one of the best lawyers that I have worked with of any age or seniority. I am thrilled to have him on my team.” "
Client Nomination

Anu has experience bringing novel, precedent-setting cases on behalf of clients. He acted as counsel for the successful applicant in Canada Without Poverty v. Attorney General of Canada, 2018 ONSC 4147, a decision that struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Income Tax Act that prohibited charities from engaging in non-partisan political speech. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation described this case as a “landmark”, and a “David versus Goliath” win for the client. Anu was counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada in Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30, a case dealing with when a corporation can be liable for the conduct of a director. In that case, the Supreme Court expressly adopted the amendment to the law proposed by his team on behalf of their client.

Teaching, Writing, and Pro Bono Work

Anu is active in teaching and writing in the profession. He taught trial advocacy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law for several years and has published on various litigation-related topics. Most recently, he co-authored the Canadian chapter of Lexology’s Getting the Deal Through – Tax Controversy 2022, 9th Edition, a guide for clients on the tax disputes landscape in Canada and around the world.

Anu received his law degree with honours from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (top 10% of his class) and completed the Canadian Bar Association Tax for Lawyers course. He also holds a Ph.D. in literature and philosophy from Duke University and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. He is a member of the Canadian Tax Foundation, the Advocates Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the South Asian Bar Association.

Representative Cases

  • A Schedule 1 bank in a dispute over the assessment of tens of millions of dollars relating to the use of credit card payment processing systems.
  • A global financial institution in a dispute regarding the availability of millions of dollars in tax refunds.
  • A global energy company in a dispute regarding the application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule arising from the acquisition and sale of resource properties in Canada.
  • A leading telecommunications company in a dispute regarding the availability of tax credits arising from goodwill coupons offered to customers.
  • A public company in a dispute regarding central management control of a foreign subsidiary.
  • A public company in a dispute as to whether certain costs were properly on account of income or capital.
  • A technology company in a dispute as to the tax consequences of a trust created to hold shares for its employees.
  • A financial services company in a dispute as to the tax consequences of a complex investment product.
  • A private equity firm in a dispute as to the amount that can be included in its capital dividend account.
  • A foreign corporation in a dispute as to the taxability of insurance products sold in Canada.