6 October 1995 APFF Roundtable Q. 20, 9522360 - AMALGAMATION AND BUTTERFLY TRANSATIONS

By services, 3 December, 2018
Bundle date
Roundtable question info
Question number
0020
Roundtable organization
Official title
AMALGAMATION AND BUTTERFLY TRANSATIONS
Language
English
CRA tags
55(3.1)(a)
Document number
Citation name
9522360
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
515300
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1995-10-06 08:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state
Workflow changed
Main text

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.

Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.

APFF - 1995

Question 20

Butterfly transactions

Ms. X, Ms. Y et Ms. Z want to divide up the assets of Opco I and Opco II and continue on their respective ways.

An amalgamation of Opco I and Opco II followed by a butterfly transaction of the resulting corporation seems acceptable under section 55 of the Act. However, for legal reasons these two corporations cannot amalgamate. Any other transaction or series of transactions that will produce the same result would go against subsection 55(3.1) of the Act.

How can this result be justified from a tax policy standpoint?

Would Revenue Canada agree to issue an advance ruling concerning an alternative transaction? For example, a transfer of shares in Opco I to Newco (JSCA), a folding of Opco I into Newco, amalgamation of Newco and Opco II and a butterfly transaction with the resulting corporation.

Answer by the Department of Revenue

The proposed alternative would constitute an acquisition of property in contemplation of a distribution, by a corporation that has been replaced by the distributing corporation, other than an acquisition provided for in subparagraphs 55(3.1)(a)(i) to (iv) of the Act. Therefore, a favourable advance ruling could not be issued for this transaction.