Despite the decision in Vaillancourt-Tremblay (which addressed only s. 84(2), and not s. 245(2)), CRA will continue to challenge abusive surplus stripping arrangements, including those taking the form of "tuck under" transactions. CRA stated:
[T]he CRA intends to continue to challenge surplus stripping situations that are considered abusive, including those in the form of "tuck under" transactions, in particular by reviewing the potential application of subsections 84(2) and 245(2) in the particular situations.
... [T]he Tremblay decision cannot be interpreted as having the effect of automatically validating all other types of "tuck under" transactions.