Section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act converts what looks like a capital gain into a deemed taxable dividend whenever an individual sells shares to a corporation they do not deal with at arm's length — the anti-surplus-stripping rule that makes selling to a related holding company fundamentally different from selling to an outside buyer.
Under ITA s. 84.1(1), where an individual disposes of shares to a non-arm’s-length purchaser corporation connected with the target, a dividend is deemed paid to the vendor and the purchaser corporation’s paid-up capital is ground down — a surplus strip through a related holdco is recharacterized rather than taxed as a capital gain. Section 84.1(2)(b) deems non-arm’s-length dealing wherever the vendor was, immediately before the sale, “one of a group of fewer than 6 persons” controlling the target and a similar group controls the purchaser afterward — catching sibling or small-family ownership groups even without a parent-child relationship anywhere in sight.
The relief valve is narrow and Bill C-208’s intergenerational-transfer rules in (2.31) and (2.32) are the main route out, and they are literally a rule for children, not for any related purchaser. The expanded “child” definition in s. 84.1(2.3)(a) covers a taxpayer’s child under s. 70(10) and “also includes… a niece or nephew… a niece or nephew of the taxpayer’s spouse or common-law partner… a spouse or common-law partner of such a niece or nephew, and… a child of such a niece or nephew” — a list that does not reach a sibling, a cousin, or an unrelated co-founder. A sale to a holdco controlled by any of those relatives stays inside s. 84.1’s deemed-dividend treatment with no statutory escape hatch, which is exactly why QSBC-eligible proceeds a vendor expects to shelter with the lifetime exemption can evaporate into an unplanned dividend the moment the buyer turns out to be a related party.
Three siblings jointly control an operating company and sell its shares for $6M cash plus a $2M vendor note to a holding company the same three siblings jointly control. Because the sellers and the holdco are a group of fewer than six persons controlling both corporations, s. 84.1(2)(b) deems the transaction non-arm’s-length, and s. 84.1(1)’s deemed-dividend formula applies to part of what the siblings receive. Because siblings are not “children” under s. 84.1(2.3)(a)’s expanded definition — which reaches nieces, nephews and their spouses and children, but not brothers or sisters — the intergenerational-transfer relief in (2.31) is unavailable to them regardless of how the rest of the deal is structured.
See also: Qualified small business corporation share · Safe income on hand · Section 85 rollover.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.
Nobody publishes Canadian transaction data, so every valuation in this country quotes an American benchmark. We are building the Canadian one — multiples, asking-to-sale spreads and days on market, by sector and by city. Leave an email and you will see it first.
No pitch, no listings. One email when the first report lands.
