The taxpayer was formed on the amalgamation of three predecessors, only one of which was a non-resident-owned investment corporation ("NRO"). Subsection 134.1(1) permitted a corporation that had been an NRO in its preceding taxation year to make an election. After referring (at para. 29) to the corporate law that "a predecessor remains in existence", Hershfield J. went on to find (at para. 33) that as s. 134.1 did not deal with the calculation of income or taxable income (as specified in s. 87(2)(a)), the case law was clear that the predecessor NRO had not ceased to exist by virtue of the amalgamation, so that the taxpayer, as a continuation of the NRO predecessor, could make the election in s. 134.1(1).
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338983
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>CGU Holdings Canada Ltd. v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2008 DTC 3347, 2008 TCC 167",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>CGU Holdings Canada Ltd. v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2008 DTC 3347, 2008 TCC 167",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}