A 50% limited partner (Ms. X) funded her investment in an LP jointly owned with her husband through a $3M bank loan that was secured by a pledge to the bank of a $3M term deposit with the bank held by a corporation (Corporation B) equally owned by her and her husband. In finding that the back-to-back loan rules in s. 15(2.6) et seq. deemed her to owe $3M to Corporation B, CRA indicated that
- Ms. X had an amount outstanding ($3M) to an “immediate funder” (the bank),
- the bank held an amount (the $3M term deposit) owing to an “ultimate funder” (Corporation B), and
- "the condition in clause 15(2.16)(c)(i)(B) would be satisfied" (e.g., the $3M loan was permitted to remain outstanding because the term deposit was outstanding).
After noting that a determination of whether there was a specified right thus was moot, CRA went on to venture:
[I]t appears possible to us that a term deposit given as a security could represent property that comes within the definition of specified right for the purposes of subparagraph 15(2.16)(c)(ii).