Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.
Principal Issues: Given that proposed section 246.1 has been abandoned will the CRA still consider issuing favourable income tax rulings on post-mortem pipeline transactions?
Reasons: In accordance with the provisions of the Act and our previous positions.
2018 STEP CRA Roundtable – May 29, 2018
QUESTION 10. Pipeline Ruling Requests
In light of the proposed and subsequent abandonment of proposed section 246.1, how will these developments impact the ability of a taxpayer to request an advance tax ruling on inter vivos or post-mortem pipeline plans?
Our Directorate continues to consider issuing favourable rulings on the potential application of section 84.1 and subsection 84(2) to post-mortem pipeline strategies on a case-by-case basis, after a review of all the facts and circumstances surrounding each specific situation. However, the CRA’s general views on these types of post-mortem strategies as set out in our response to Question 22 at the 2011 Annual Canadian Tax Foundation Conference are still applicable.
Briefly, in our response to Question 22 we noted, inter alia, that in the context of certain post-mortem pipeline strategies, some of the additional facts and circumstances that in our view could lead to the application of subsection 84(2) and warrant dividend treatment could include the following elements:
“The funds or property of the original corporation would be distributed to the estate in a short time frame following the death of the testator.
The nature of the underlying assets of the original corporation would be cash and the original corporation would have no activities or business (“cash corporation”).
Where such circumstances exist, resulting in the application of subsection 84(2) and dividend treatment on the distribution to the estate, we believe that double taxation at the shareholder level could still be mitigated with the implementation of the subsection 164(6) capital loss carryback strategy, provided the conditions of the provision would apply in the particular facts and circumstance.”
Accordingly, in cases where we have issued favourable rulings, the particular taxpayer’s facts and proposed transactions, amongst other things, did not involve a cash corporation and contemplated a continuation of the particular business for a period of at least one year following which, a progressive distribution of the corporation’s assets would occur over a period of time. Consequently, one or more of the conditions in subsection 84(2) were not met.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to electronically copy and to print in hard copy for internal use only. No part of this information may be reproduced, modified, transmitted or redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system for any purpose other than noted above (including sales), without prior written permission of Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2018
Tous droits réservés. Il est permis de copier sous forme électronique ou d'imprimer pour un usage interne seulement. Toutefois, il est interdit de reproduire, de modifier, de transmettre ou de redistributer de l'information, sous quelque forme ou par quelque moyen que ce soit, de facon électronique, méchanique, photocopies ou autre, ou par stockage dans des systèmes d'extraction ou pour tout usage autre que ceux susmentionnés (incluant pour fin commerciale), sans l'autorisation écrite préalable de l'Agence du revenu du Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5.
© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 2018