Principal Issues: Whether the term “merger” as used in subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i) may include a winding-up.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Based on the various Canadian legal definitions of the term “merger”, such term may be broadly interpreted so as to include a winding-up. Furthermore, had Parliament intended to exclude a winding-up from the reference to “merger” in subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i) it would have specifically done so by incorporating exclusionary wording to that effect, as was done in subsections 87(1), 87(8.1), 87(8.2) and 128.2(3). Furthermore, based on the text, context and purpose of paragraph 40(3.5)(c) the tax deferred liquidation of CCo should not result in the suspended loss becoming available, as such liquidation should fall within the ambit of “merger” in subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i).