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.
| |
June 28, 1989 |
| TO: Legislative Affairs Directorate |
FROM: Specialty Rulings |
| |
Directorate |
| Roy C. Shultis, Director |
T.B. Kuss |
| Publications Division |
957-2123 |
| |
File No. 7-4013 |
SUBJECT: Publication of Advance Income Tax Ruling 24(1)
In our view the above ruling is a good one to publish as it is not unduly complicated and involves two issues that are very topical (i.e. crystallizing the capital gains exemption and avoiding the application of paragraph 85(1)(e.2.)).
We have included a copy of your edited ruling and have "red- circled" any spelling or grammatical errors that we noticed. We also offer a number of suggested changes for your consideration. These are summarized below and are also written on the draft.
1. We suggest "Opco" be called "Holdco" as it is a holding company.
2. We suggest "Oldco" be called "Opco" since it is a operating company.
3. In the second sentence in paragraph 3 we suggest "residents of Canada" read "resident in Canada" as that is how the phrase is used throughout the Act.
4. Consideration should be given to including the incorporation date for Opco as it would eliminate any concerns regarding the impact of V-day on the operation of paragraph 84.1(2)(a.1).
5. It is unclear from the ruling itself how the adjusted cost base to Mr. X for purposes of subsection 84.1(1) 24(1) was determined under paragraph 84.1(2)(a.1). This can be a somewhat controversial issue at times and we suggest that paragraph 13 simply state that "...The aggregate stated capital of the Class A common shares of Newco will be equal to the adjusted cost base for purposes of subsection 84.1(1)... as determined under paragraph 84.1(2)(a.1) of the Act. As a result, the last sentence in subparagraph 16(c) should be amended to read "The aggregate stated capital of the Class A and Class B common shares of Amalco will be equal to the aggregate stated capital of the Class A and Class B common shares of Newco respectively."
6. The statement at the end of paragraph 12 that no shares be issued on the incorporation of Newco is necessary for us to be able to give a clean paragraph 85(1)(e.2) ruling. It is not clear whether all provincial corporate acts allow for an incorporation to be effective prior to shares being issued. Therefore we suggest that the province of incorporation of Newco be stated in the proposed transactions.
7. The first line of subparagraph 13(c) should be amended as attached.
We hope are comments are of assistance.
Director GeneralSpecialty Rulings DirectorateLegislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs Branch
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, 1989
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, 1989
Email this Content