Words and Phrases - "ultimate control"
29 August 2000 Internal T.I. 2000-0023187 F - Société privée sous contrôle canadien
A corporation (Opco), the voting rights of which were owned as to 1/3 by an individual and as to 2/3 by a limited partnership of which the general partner (C Ltd.) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of B Ltd., which was wholly-owned by a public corporation, (A Ltd.). After noting that a limited partnership with a sole general partner is generally considered to be controlled by that general partner, CRA indicated that C Ltd. thus controlled Opco, and that the “ultimate control” of Opco, as described in Parthenon, was held by A Ltd. Thus, since Opco was controlled by a public corporation, it was not a CCPC.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 251 - Subsection 251(2) - Paragraph 251(2)(b) - Subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i) | GP generally controls a corporation whose voting control is held by a limited partnership | 121 |
Parthenon Investments Ltd. v. Canada (National Revenue), 97 DTC 5343 (FCA)
All the voting shares of the taxpayer were owned by a Canadian corporation all of whose voting shares were owned by a U.S. corporation. All the shares of the U.S. corporation were owned by two Canadian-resident corporations.
In finding that the taxpayer was a Canadian-controlled private corporation, MacGuigan J.A. stated (at p. 5345):
"Control has about it a character of exclusivity, of finality, and cannot allow for two masters simultaneously. In the case at bar control rests, ultimately, in the hands of Canadian residents. We do not see an interpretation in terms of ultimate control as an addition of the word 'ultimately' to what would otherwise be a rule of plain meaning, but rather as emphasizing that the concept of control has necessarily latent within it the notion of ultimate control."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(1) - Paragraph 20(1)(c) | 44 |