Has anyone seen a (non-cash) specified right?

In simple terms, a "specified right" under the back-to-back loan rules is the right of a person to treat property as it if it were its own property. "Such a right would rarely if ever be granted in respect of a property used to secure a debt or other obligation, except possibly in the case of cash collateral."

Where Canco owes $50 to a Netherlands company (an intermediary under the back-to-back loan rules), which owes $40 to Caymanco and $100 to USCo, s. 212(3.3) rightfully would permit Canco to effectively designate $40 of its $50 debt as owing to USCo, thereby avoiding withholding tax at 25% on the $40. However, there is no such relief because the s. 212(3.3) rule applies only to debt that is subject to withholding under the back-to-back loan rule – and such withholding only applies where the ultimate creditor is in a jurisdiction with a lower withholding rate (i.e., 0% for the U.S.) than that of the intermediary (i.e., 10% for the Netherlands). On the other hand, the s. 212(3.3) relief is available where the lenders to the intermediary are resident in jurisdictions with a higher withholding rate (e.g., 15%) than that of the intermediary’s jurisdiction. This is anomalous.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of John Lorito and Trevor O'Brien, "International Finance – Cash Pooling Arrangements," draft version of paper for CTF 2014 Conference Report under s. 18(5) – specified right, s. 212(3.3), s. 90(15) – specified debtor, s. 15(2.3), s. 227(6.1), s. 15(2), s. 212.3(10)(c), s. 95(2)(a)(ii)(B) and s. 261(21).