News of Note
A deemed year end does not arise under s. 249(3.1) (re loss of CCPC status) if a s. 89(11) election has been made
Email this ContentIf a CCPC has made the s. 89(11) election not to be a CCPC for certain purposes including s. 249(3.1), this of course means that s. 249(3.1) will not apply to give it a deemed taxation year end if two public corporations acquire a majority of its shares (so that it then ceases to be a CCPC for all purposes). As intimated by CRA, this point is relevant if the two public corporations are not a group, so that s. 249(4)(a) also would not apply to produce a deemed year end.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 27 March 2014 T.I. 2014-0523171E5 under s. 249(3.1).
CRA finds that a s. 251(5)(b) right does not vitiate the actual control by the share owner
Where a CCPC (Bco) makes a binding offer to purchase all the shares of a subsidiary (Aco) of a public corporation, the fact that s. 251(5)(b) may apply at that time to now deem Bco to control Aco does not detract (in light of Ekamant) from the actual control of Aco at that time by the public corporation. Accordingly, Aco will not become a CCPC, and s. 249(4) (or 256(9)) will not apply, until the offer closes.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 27 March 2014 T.I. 2014-0524851E5 F under s. 249(3.1).
Income Tax Severed Letters 30 April 2014
This morning's release of 10 severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA provides provincial GAAR rulings
A public company (Lossco) is transferring losses to a "Profitco" which is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of another public company (Bco) which is partially owned by Lossco. Profitco effectively is receiving the losses for free, which means that the minority shareholders of Bco are receiving a free ride.
In addition to customary federal rulings including GAAR, CRA ruled that the provincial GAAR for any province with which there is a tax collection agreement will not be applied to "determine" (i.e., redetermine) tax consequences addressed in the federal rulings.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2013 Ruling 2013-0504301R3 under s. 111(1)(a) and s. 245(4).
A profitco will form an LP in order that a limited recourse loss-transfer loan can be made to the LP
A direct recourse loan by a Lossco to a subsidiary Profitco (Opco) would not have complied with a debt indenture of Opco. Accordingly, the loss shifting transactions will entail Lossco making an interest-bearing loan to a newly-formed subsidiary LP of Opco, with recourse under the loan limited to the pref shares of an affiliated Newco acquired by the LP with the loan proceeds.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2013 Ruling 2013-0483491R3 under s. 111(1)(a).
Proftitcos will form an LP to facilitate the transfer of losses from a multitude of sister losscos
In order to facilitate the transfer of losses between a multitude of subsidiary Losscos and three Profitcos (being the parent and two wholly-owned subsidiaries), the Profitcos will form a subsidiary LP which will subscribe for pref of the Losscos and receive interest-bearing loans from the Losscos.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2013 Ruling 2012-0458091R3 under s. 111(1)(a).
CRA addresses types of property held by an inactive business in a spit-up butterfly
In a split-up butterfly of a CCPC (DC) that had discontinued farming itself and had rented out its lands to other farmers, the farm land was treated as investment property whereas farming equipment and inventory which it had not yet been sold was classified as business property.
The receipt under the steps of deemed dividends both by DC and the transferee corporations (TCs) for the three family shareholders gives rise to a potential RDTOH circularity problem. The Directorate leaves this problem to the district offices, stating that they "will have to be consulted in order to determine which corporation will receive the dividend refund and which corporation will be subject to the Part IV tax liability under paragraph 186(1)(b)."
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2013 Ruling 2013-0502921R3 under s. 55(1) – distribution and s. 186(1).
CRA accommodates multiplication of small business deduction by professional partners
CRA has provided another ruling permitting incorporated members of a professional partnership to enjoy the small business deduction. CRA accepts a representation that the professional corporations are not partners of each other, including representations that each such corporation is free to compete with the partnership. Accordingly, the corporations are not required to share the small business deduction under the specified partnership income rules.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2013 Ruling 2013-0498961R3 under s. 125(7) – specified partnership income and s. 256(2.1).
A loan extension need not trigger an FX gain
CRA likely considers that the renewal of a foreign currency borrowing by a taxpayer from a related company following its maturity (i.e., an extension of the maturity date) will not give rise to a gain or loss under s. 39(2) unless there was an intention by the parties that the loan be novated.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 14 March 2014 Memo 2013-0507661I7 under s. 39(2).
Lehigh Cement – Federal Court of Appeal finds that s. 95(6)(b) is restricted to status-manipulation share acquisitions or dispositions
Stratas JA confirmed that CRA could not apply s. 95(6)(b) to deny the s. 113(1)(a) deduction of the taxpayer for exempt dividends in a double-dip structure (where the taxpayer borrowed to contribute to an LLC which was a partnership for US purposes, with the LLC lending to US Opco and distributing the interest income to the taxpayer as exempt dividends on the basis that they were deemed active business income). He found that s. 95(6)(b) was intended only to deal with "the manipulation of share ownership of the non-resident corporation to meet or fail the relevant tests for foreign affiliate, controlled foreign affiliate or related corporation status in subdivision i" through share acquisitions or dispositions (perhaps thinking of the types of transactions described by Nat Boidman). Here, there was no such manipulation of status, and the Tax Court instead had found that the purpose of the LLC was to achieve US tax savings.
Stratas JA also advanced a principle that one should be loath to interpret an avoidance provision broadly so as to effectively give CRA a largely unfettered right to treat similarly-situated taxpayers differently.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of The Queen v. Lehigh Cement Ltd., 2014 FCA 103 under s. 95(6)(b) and Statutory Interpretation – Certainty.