Subsection 245(4)

no abuse in a tax plan producing the same gain as if the ultimate shareholder had directly used its high outside basis for its investment

CRA will continue to issue post-mortem pipeline rulings following the GAAR amendments, but will not rule on surplus stripping by individuals

the generation of a capital loss on a partnership interest representing a successful investment was a GAAR abuse

an acquisition of an insolvent public company with losses by a SIFT trust was an abuse of s. 111(5)

acquisition of close to legal control of a Lossco by two arm’s length companies in a different business to access its losses was an abuse

the residence, beneficial owner, and voting requirements in the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty fully expressed the rationale for the 5% Treaty-reduced rate on dividends

Deans Knight applied regarding acquiring an approximate 100% interest in a Lossco with no change of de jure control

a yo-yo transaction to utilize the accrued capital loss of an indirect subsidiary to step-up nil-basis shares to FMV was not a GAAR abuse

a transaction where a Lossco became subject to control rights similar to de jure control abused the rationale of s. 111(5)

a cross-border repo was not an abuse of the s. 17 rule