In the case of Agnew v. Canada[7], Justice OConnor, in a very similar investment, summarized the situation as follows: 126 The investment changed in form from one of initial limited partnerships where losses were incurred to the later structure where corporations were formed and assets were transferred by the partnerships to the corporations and shares in the corporations were issued to the former partners and the limited partnership was dissolved shortly thereafter. I do not believe that a change of structure that was contemplated in the initial OM is sufficient to destroy the initial concept of a business source and a profit. Even though the operation is carried out at different stages by different entities it is one continuous plan which considering there was no personal element was a source of business. Moreover, although no profits were contemplated immediately for the limited partners, it was planned they were to receive dividends in due course on the corporate shares they received in exchange for the partnerships assets. This supports my view that a view to profit is a view to profit from the business or enterprise, not strictly from the particular form of legal entity.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.