Income Tax Severed Letters - 2019-03-06

Ruling

Unedited CRA Tags: 
84.1, 84(2), 245(2)

2018 Ruling 2018-0780201R3 - Post-mortem pipeline -- attach -- Subsection 84(2)

hybrid post-mortem 164(6)/pipeline transactions with 10% per quarter redemptions following 12 months

Background

The Deceased held voting redeemable retractable Class A Special Shares of Opco (which the Deceased thereby controlled) and a Family...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 84 - Subsection 84(1) use of CDA and s. 84(1) deemed dividend to generate s. 164(6) loss 110

2018 Ruling 2018-0780201R3 - Post-mortem pipeline -- attach -- Subsection 84(1)

use of CDA and s. 84(1) deemed dividend to generate s. 164(6) loss

CRA provided rulings for a pipeline transaction in which the estate with a resident beneficiary sells a company (Opco) with apparently a real...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 84 - Subsection 84(2) hybrid post-mortem 164(6)/pipeline transactions with 10% per quarter redemptions following 12 months 396

Principal Issues: 1. Whether section 84.1 will apply to deem the Estate to have received a dividend from Newco, on the disposition of its Opco shares. 2. Whether section 84.1 will apply to cause a reduction in the PUC of the Newco shares received by the Estate, on the disposition of its Opco shares. 3. Whether subsection 84(2) applies to the Proposed Transactions. 4. Whether GAAR applies to the Proposed Transactions.

Position: 1. No. Favourable ruling given. 2. No. Favourable ruling given. 3. No. Favourable ruling given.

Reasons: In accordance with the provisions of the Act and our previous positions.

Unedited CRA Tags: 
15(1), 56(2), 87, 149, 149.1, 188(1), 246(1), 248(1) "shareholder"

Principal Issues: (1) Whether two societies, a public foundation that is a registered charity and a non-profit organization, both established under the XXXXXXXXXX, be considered to have disposed of their assets on their amalgamation to create a new society? (2) Whether members of the amalgamating societies will be considered to have realized income or capital gain or to have received a benefit pursuant to subsections 15(1), 56(2) or 246(1)? (3) Whether the new society will be a registered charity and could have the same business number and charity number as the previous one?

Position: (1) No. (2) No. (3) Administrative issue.

Reasons: (1) There is no disposition of assets since the new society will be the continuity of the previous societies under the XXXXXXXXXX and the cost and cost amounts will be transferred to the new society. (2) The new society is the continuity of the previous ones and the members are not allowed to receive dividends or property from both the previous societies and the new one. (3) It is not the mandate of the Income Tax Rulings Directorate to confirm the registration of a charity nor to issue a business or charity number.

Unedited CRA Tags: 
84.1, 84(2), 245

2018 Ruling 2018-0767431R3 - Post-mortem pipeline -- attach -- Subsection 84(2)

somewhat fast pipeline (12 months/15% per quarter) for a company with a marketable securities “business”

Background

On A’s death, he owned appreciated common and redeemable retractable preference shares and a non-interest-bearing demand promissory...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Principal Issues: 1. Does paragraph 84.1(1)(b) deem a dividend in the Proposed Transactions? 2. Does subsection 84(2) apply to the Proposed Transactions? 3. Does the GAAR apply to the Proposed Transactions?

Position: 1. No. Favourable Rulings Given. 2. No. Favourable Rulings Given. 3. No. Favourable Rulings Given.

Reasons: The Proposed Transactions are in accordance with the Act, relevant jurisprudence and are consistent with our previous positions.