Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background

The IRS announced in July that it has withdrawn proposed regulations (the net value regulations) that provided guidance regarding corporate formations, reorganizations and liquidations of insolvent corporations. Those regulations, which were proposed in 2005, required the exchange (or, in the case of the liquidation of a subsidiary into its parent, the distribution) of “net value” in order for the transaction to qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (the Code).

The Net Value Regulations

Net Value in 332 Liquidations