{"id":912,"date":"2013-10-07T16:55:14","date_gmt":"2013-10-07T16:55:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thor.ca\/\/blog\/?p=912"},"modified":"2013-10-07T16:55:14","modified_gmt":"2013-10-07T16:55:14","slug":"cra-considers-more-closely-connected-business-activities-test-in-new-cric-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/2013\/10\/cra-considers-more-closely-connected-business-activities-test-in-new-cric-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"CRA considers \u201cmore closely connected business activities\u201d test in new CRIC rules"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/thor.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/2013-0474671E5.pdf\">2013-0474671E5<\/a>, the CRA concluded that \u201cthe simple holding of shares\u201d by a US company is not a business activity, and as such, would be ignored when applying the \u201cmore closely connected business activities\u201d exception in the new \u201cforeign affiliate dumping\u201d (or CRIC) rules.  The hypothetical case involved a non-resident parent owning a Canadian company (Canco), Canco owning a US holding company (US Holdco), and US Holdco owning a US operating company (US Opco).  US Opco carried on an active business similar to an active business Canco carried on in Canada.  No other non-resident corporations in the group carried on business activities similar to Canco\u2019s business activities in Canada.  The CRA confirmed that for the purpose of the \u201cmore closely connected business activities\u201d exception in the CRIC rules (s. 212.3(16)), the collective business activities of US Holdco and US Opco would be comprised only of those activities carried on by US Opco.  Accordingly, the first condition in s. 212.3(16) would be met: i.e., Opco\u2019s business activities were expected to remain \u201cmore closely connected\u201d to Canco\u2019s business activities than to any other business activities carried on by any other non-resident corporation in the group.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/thor.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/2013-0474671E5.pdf\">2013-0474671E5<\/a>, the CRA concluded that \u201cthe simple holding of shares\u201d by a US company is not a business activity, and as such, would be ignored when applying the \u201cmore closely connected business activities\u201d exception in the new \u201cforeign&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corporate-tax"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}