USco disposed of 50% of the shares of Canco to another corporation ("Holdco" – that was a Canadian-owned Canadian corporation), "retroactive" to a particular date. After commenting on the effectiveness or not of the stated effective date, the Directorate went on to address whether there was a resulting acquisition of control, stating:
[T]his disposition would likely have resulted in an acquisition of control of Canco. Indeed, prior to the disposition of the shares, Canco would appear to be controlled by a single person, namely USco. From the disposition of the shares, Canco would appear to be controlled by a group of persons consisting of USco and Holdco. The CRA's position on this point is that in almost all cases where the voting rights in a corporation are exercised equally by two shareholders, the corporation will be controlled by the group composed of those two shareholders. To rebut this presumption of control by the group, it would be necessary to show that no shareholder controls the corporation and that the decision-making process in the corporation is effectively deadlocked. Such a situation would be very exceptional. It could, however, occur when the two shareholders cannot agree on how to manage the corporation and therefore go to court to authorize the dissolution of their corporation.