It is often quite useful to have Holdco own shares of Opco through a trust rather than directly. In general, the other beneficiaries of the trust can still claim the capital gain exemption in respect of a disposition of the shares of Opco, and keeping the redundant assets of Opco to a minimum while deferring tax at the individual shareholder level can be as simple as paying a dividend from Opco that is allocated to Holdco as a beneficiary of the trust.
Full-time Employees
To avoid being found to carry on a “personal services business” or a “specified investment business” under the Income Tax Act, a corporation must employ “more than five full-time employees”. The CRA, based on several tax court decisions, has stated…
Paying dividends
Richard Weber at Taylor Leibow was kind enough to forward to me a CRA technical interpretation (2007-0229311I7) dated June 14, 2007, concerning the payment of dividends. A corporation purported to pay a capital dividend. The necessary election was filed, but the corporation forgot to reflect the dividend in its financial statements, and apparently the dividend was not otherwise paid. The CRA discovered these facts when conducting an audit.
Leaving a Sinking Ship
The following article on resignation as a director of a corporation and directors’ liability under the Income Tax Act (Canada) appeared in the latest edition of the Hamilton Law Association Law Journal.
PC Wind Down
What happens to a professional corporation (a “PC”) when the doctor is no longer in the house?
Rectification
Tax practitioners will be familiar with the Juliar case, which allowed the parties to a transaction to amend it with retroactive effect in order to avoid adverse income tax consequences. According to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the case, it didn’t matter that the only purpose for the amendment was to avoid or postpone income taxes. What mattered was that the parties had a continuing, common intention to effect the transactions in a tax-deferred manner, which intention was thwarted by the form of the transaction.
The Ontario Superior Court came to a different conclusion in Binder v. Saffron Rouge Inc., 2008 CanLII 1662 because the parties did not have the requisite common intention.
Corporate authorizations
It seems that lately the CRA has been refusing to accept corporate authorization forms (RC59s) signed by anyone other than a director of a corporation. The CRA will refuse to accept the consent unless it is signed by somebody who appears in the “Ontario registry” as a director. What is the CRA up to now?
Lawyers!
Subsection 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) provides that “where a party to a proceeding is not an individual, that party shall be represented by counsel except with leave of the Court and on any conditions that it may determine.”
Information Returns
In early January, I reported that “the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (the “MGCS”) and the CRA are working to integrate the information return with the new single tax return.” On Monday, the MGCS issued a notice stating that the process is moving forward as follows:
Notes on a Price Adjustment Clause
The following article will appear in the next edition of the HLA Journal.
Almost every tax-driven reorganization requires the lawyer implementing it to draft a price adjustment clause (a “PAC”). Most lawyers will have their favourite precedent for such a clause, but a lawyer needs to understand the nature and purpose of PACs—and how the CRA interprets them—so that he or she can use them appropriately in the context of any given set of transactions. This article does not purport to be a complete review of the theory and practice of PACs; it is more like a collection of notes on some of the more important features of a PAC precedent.