Given the acceptance of a tuck-under transaction in Vaillancourt-Tremblay, does CRA still consider that s. 84(2) should not apply to such a transaction? After noting that this decision contained a dissent and did not address s. 245(2), 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.
That being said, it is possible that, under appropriate circumstances, "tuck under" transactions may be performed without triggering the application of subsections 84(2) and 245(2). For example, the CRA maintains its long-standing position that subsections 84(2) and 245(2) should not apply to a "tuck under" transaction to extract the safe income on hand relating to the interest of a corporate taxpayer in a target corporation, of the type described in this question. However, and on the basis of the foregoing, the CRA is of the view that the Tremblay decision cannot be interpreted as having the effect of automatically validating all other types of "tuck under" transactions.