2017-0696821E5 F described two individuals, Mr. A and Mr. B, who wholly-owned two corporations of equal value (A Inc. and B Inc.) and who, on the corporations’ amalgamation, received equal numbers of shares of Amalco, but also received an equal amount of cash from Amalco. CRA indicated that the payout of the cash (pursuant to the Amalgamation Agreement) would comply with s. 87(1)(c) (i.e., the predecessor shareholders received shares of Amalco), but went on to indicate that the cash payout prevented there from being a rollover at the shareholder level that otherwise would have been available under s. 87(4).
CRA now stated:
[I]n light of Envision Credit Union v. Canada, 2013 SCC 48, the condition in paragraph 87(1)(a) would generally be met in the hypothetical situation presented in the Interpretation.