Principal Issues: Request for confirmation from CRA that events subsequent to the issuance of advance income tax ruling 2011-040898 would not affect the ruling and the opinion given.
Position: The subsequent events do not affect the validity of the ruling given.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
maximizing deduction through debt parking with parent rather than simple settlement subject to s. 61.3(3)
Mco has a wholly-owned subsidiary (Aco) which is in financial difficulty, is not an insurance corporation, bank or credit union, does not have any...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principales Questions: In the particular situation, whether a debt parking situation would give a more favorable result with respect to the application of subsection 63.1(1) to a particular corporation resident in Canada rather than a direct settlement of the debt by the particular corporation.
Position Adoptée: Likely no.
Raisons: General comments with respect to the discretionary power provided to the Minister under subsection 80(16) where an amount would be otherwise deducted under section 61.3, GAAP and the anti-avoidance rule provided under subsection 61.3(3).
voting rights shifted to 2nd trust with same trustees: no control change
179
Principales Questions: 1. Whether paragraphs 191(3)(a) and (b) apply in a particular situation. 2. Whether there is an acquisition of control of the corporation redeeming the voting shares in the particular situation.
Position Adoptée: 1. No 2. No
Raisons: 1. Wording of the Act. 2. The same persons would control the corporation before and after the redemption of the voting shares.
