26 February 1991 Income Tax Severed Letter

By services, 22 July, 2022
Language
English
Document number
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
657881
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [
"menu:://Federal Income Tax [CCH Tax ]/Tax Window Files/Tax Window Files/Tax Window Files/1990s/1991 [MR91_194.197 - FE91_224.226]/FE91_159 — Review of the General Anti-avoidance Rule Course Material - Case Study #2"
],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1991-02-26 07:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Main text

CASE STUDY #2

Recommended Solution:

     (1)  Review of the Act:
          There would not appear to be any particular avoidance
          provisions in the Act to disallow the application of
          the replacement property rules under section 44.
     (2)  Identification of a Tax Benefit:
          The deferral of the tax consequences on the disposal of
          the real estate property would constitute a tax
          benefit.  There would probably be a capital gain and
          recaptured capital cost allowance    on the sale of
          the real estate property if the replacement property
          rules were not utilized.
     (3)  Identification of an Avoidance Transaction:
          Since the replacement property rules would not apply to
          the disposition of the real estate property by Holdco
          and there is no other business purpose for the transfer
          of the real estate property from Holdco to Opco then it
          would be difficult to conclude that the primary purpose
          of the section 85 rollover is other than to obtain the
          tax benefit associated with the replacement property
          rules.
     (4)  Misuse or Abuse of the Act:
          The Act permits a transfer of property to a corporation
          on a tax deferred basis and in this particular case
          the transfer of property from Holdco to Opco would be
          within the object and spirit of the Act.  Neither
          section 44 nor subsection 248(1) provides any minimum
          ownership or use period regarding the former business
          property.  If subsequent to the transfer, the property
          qualifies as "former business property" then the gain
          realized on the disposition may be eligible for
          deferral under the provisions of subsection 44(1) of
          the Act.  It is our view that, subject to the
          replacement property being utilized in Opco's active
          business, the transactions would qualify for exemption
          from the application of subsection 245(2) pursuant to
          subsection 245(4).
        Other Comments
          The Draft Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Related
          Statutes issued by The Honourable Michael H. Wilson,
          Minister of Finance, in July 1990 proposes to amend
          the provisions of section 44 so that a former business
          property used by the taxpayer or a person related to
          the taxpayer will be eligible for the rollover.  It
          will no longer be necessary to transfer the business
          assets from one corporation to another in a corporate
          group in order to qualify for the replacement property
          rules under the provisions of section 44.

000159