Current to July 17, 2026
A share purchase changes who owns the corporation. An asset purchase transfers specific assets and specific liabilities that the parties agree on. Neither one is automatically the "clean" choice:
- Sellers usually prefer a share sale: one clean exit, potential access to the capital gains exemption, and contracts and licences that carry over without renegotiation.
- Buyers usually prefer an asset purchase: they can leave most of the seller's unknown history behind and often get a better tax basis going forward.
- Structure also drives GST/HST treatment, purchase-price allocation, and who is exposed to the CRA's deemed-trust claims.
The right structure depends on tax, consent, liability, financing, and price-allocation consequences, and on which side of the negotiating table actually has leverage, not simply which side of the table you occupy.
- A share deal transfers the corporation's shares, not its underlying contracts or assets; change-of-control clauses may still require consent.
- An asset deal transfers only what the agreement and applicable law effectively convey; liabilities can still follow by statute, contract, successor doctrines, or transaction design.
- Ontario employment continuity rules can preserve service in an asset sale; "terminate and rehire" is not a universal reset.
- The GST/HST going-concern election under Excise Tax Act s. 167 may reduce closing cash tax, but only if the statutory conditions are met and the parties make the election properly.
- A buyer's tax basis usually differs materially between structures; purchase-price allocation under Income Tax Act s. 68 drives future capital cost allowance and taxable gains.
- The lifetime capital gains exemption is available only if the shares and the shareholder satisfy the Income Tax Act tests for qualified small business corporation shares.
- Registered PPSA searches are essential, but registration results are not a complete title opinion; releases, subordinations, and payout mechanics matter.
- Price, indemnities, escrows, holdbacks, working-capital adjustments, and insurance allocate risks that structure alone cannot eliminate.
Every business sale we see come through Burlington, Mississauga, Oakville, and across the GTA eventually comes down to one basic question: are you buying the shares of the company, or are you buying its assets? It sounds like a small technical detail. It isn't. This one choice decides who keeps the risks, who pays more in tax, which contracts carry over, and in many cases, whether the deal even closes. This is the central decision behind every mergers and acquisitions deal we structure.
The Basic Difference
In a share purchase, the buyer simply buys the shares of the company itself. The company keeps running exactly as it was: same legal entity, same contracts, same debts and risks, same employees, same history. Only the ownership changes.
In an asset purchase, the buyer only buys specific pieces of the business, things like equipment, inventory, customer lists, intellectual property, and sometimes the company name, while the seller's original company keeps existing on paper (and is usually wound down later). The buyer is basically building a new shell around the parts they want and leaving the rest behind.
That one difference creates almost every other difference in the deal.
Why Sellers Almost Always Want a Share Sale
If you're selling, a share sale is usually the cleaner way out. You're selling the whole company, history and all, and walking away.
The tax treatment is usually better. In Canada, selling shares of a qualifying small business can use the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption, which shelters a big portion of the profit from tax entirely, one of the reasons how you set up your corporate structure from the start matters so much. Asset sales don't get this benefit, and the money often gets taxed twice: once inside the company, and again when you pull it out personally.
Contracts and licenses carry over automatically. Leases, supplier deals, customer contracts, government licenses, none of them need to be reassigned or renegotiated, because the company that holds them hasn't changed. In an asset deal, every single one of those needs the other party's permission to transfer, and anyone who doesn't want to cooperate can hold up the whole deal.
Employees stay employed by the same company. No firings, no rehiring, no extra severance costs triggered just by the sale itself, though a buyer will still want to know how much of the business runs through key people rather than the company itself.
The tradeoff is that the buyer inherits everything, both the risks they know about and the ones they don't. That's exactly why buyers push back on share deals.
Why Buyers Almost Always Want an Asset Sale
If you're buying, an asset purchase lets you pick what comes with you and what gets left behind.
You don't inherit most of the seller's history. Unknown contract disputes, pending lawsuits, environmental problems, warranty claims on products sold years ago, generally none of that follows you into a clean asset purchase, unlike a share deal, where you step directly into the seller's shoes.
There's one important exception that buyers consistently get wrong, and it involves the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency). Many buyers assume an asset purchase lets them walk away from the seller's unpaid tax debt completely. It doesn't. Income Tax Act s. 227(4.1) creates a deemed trust over unremitted source deductions, and Excise Tax Act s. 222 does the same for collected but unremitted GST/HST. These claims can work almost like a lien with priority over other creditors, and their operation can extend to property in the hands of a buyer, even in a clean asset sale that has nothing to do with the CRA directly. In Callidus Capital Corp. v. Canada, 2018 SCC 47, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 186, the Supreme Court held that a tax debtor's bankruptcy retroactively extinguished the ETA s. 222 deemed trust as against a secured creditor who had already received proceeds from the debtor before the bankruptcy. In First Vancouver Finance v. M.N.R., 2002 SCC 49, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 720, the Court considered how the ITA s. 227(4.1) deemed trust attaches to a tax debtor's property, including proceeds received by a third party. Neither case creates a general tax clearance rule, and neither is a reason to skip tax diligence: how these provisions apply, and in what priority, still depends on the exact facts.
This is exactly the kind of risk that careful due diligence, tax clearance certificates, and properly structured holdbacks (money held back until certain conditions are met) exist to deal with. It's one of the clearest reasons an asset purchase isn't an automatic shield on its own. A buyer who assumes the structure alone solves this problem is taking on real, unprotected risk.
A buyer client structured an acquisition as an asset purchase specifically to avoid inheriting the seller's history, without initially realizing that a CRA claim for unpaid source deductions can still follow purchased assets regardless of structure. We required a tax clearance certificate from the CRA as a condition of closing and held back a portion of the purchase price in escrow until it was confirmed. The certificate process turned up a modest unpaid remittance the seller hadn't disclosed, which was resolved out of the escrowed funds before release, protecting the buyer from an outcome that an asset deal alone would not have prevented.
You get a "stepped-up" tax basis. In plain terms, the assets you buy get recorded at the price you paid for them, which means more depreciation write-offs going forward, lowering your taxable income for years after the deal closes. In a share purchase, you inherit the seller's old tax basis on those same assets, which is often much lower and less favorable.
You can be selective. Want the equipment and customer list but not that underperforming division or one bad customer contract? An asset deal lets you pick and choose. A share deal is all-or-nothing.
- A clean, complete exit from the business
- Access to better tax treatment on the sale
- No renegotiating contracts or leases
- Employees stay employed without disruption
- Fewer conditions to satisfy before closing
- Limited exposure to the seller's unknown risks
- A better tax position on the assets they buy
- The ability to exclude unwanted assets or contracts
- Lower overall risk in the deal
- A cleaner integration of only what they actually want
The tradeoff for the buyer is more disruption. Contracts need permission to transfer. Licenses may need to be reissued. Employees technically need to be rehired by the new company, which can trigger notice and severance rules under employment law that wouldn't apply in a share deal.
Tax Consequences: Basis, Allocation, and Elections
The tax analysis runs on separate tracks depending on structure, and it's worth being precise about each one before it gets folded into price negotiations.
Share Purchase
In a share purchase, the buyer's tax cost is generally in the acquired shares. The corporation's tax bases in its own assets do not ordinarily reset merely because its shareholders change.
Asset Purchase
In an asset purchase, the agreed price must be allocated among inventory, depreciable property, land, goodwill, and other assets. Income Tax Act s. 68 can reallocate an unreasonable amount, so the agreement, valuation evidence, and both parties' tax reporting should align. A higher allocation to depreciable property may improve a buyer's future capital cost allowance, but it can increase the seller corporation's recapture. Goodwill, inventory, and non-depreciable capital property carry different consequences. "Step-up" is useful shorthand, but it isn't a promise that every dollar is immediately deductible.
GST/HST Election on a Business Sale
Excise Tax Act s. 167 permits a joint election for certain supplies of a business or part of a business where the recipient acquires all, or substantially all, of the property reasonably necessary to carry it on. Eligibility, registration status, excluded supplies, filing, and self-assessment must all be confirmed. Calling the transaction a sale of a going concern does not, by itself, remove GST/HST; the statutory conditions still have to be met.
Capital Gains Exemption on Share Sales
An individual selling shares may claim the capital gains deduction under Income Tax Act s. 110.6(2.1) only for a disposition of qualified small business corporation shares, as defined in s. 110.6(1). The tests include ownership and asset-use conditions measured at closing. A share sale does not automatically qualify. Purification, holding-company assets, shareholder status, prior claims, alternative minimum tax, and crystallization planning all require tax advice well before a letter of intent.
Who Actually Has Leverage Here
Before either side picks a structure and digs in, it's worth being honest about something most people don't say out loud: one side usually has more leverage than the other, and the structure debate often gets decided by leverage just as much as by logic. This is exactly the dynamic that plays out earlier too, in how the letter of intent gets negotiated before the purchase agreement is ever drafted.
Leverage in a negotiation really comes down to one thing. The stronger party is whoever can walk away from the deal and still be fine. The weaker party is whoever really needs this specific deal, with this specific buyer or seller, on roughly this timeline.
A seller with only one offer on the table, a lease coming up for renewal, or a personal reason to be done by year end is negotiating from a weaker position, no matter how good the business is. A buyer with three other targets lined up and no emotional attachment to any one of them is negotiating from strength, even with a mediocre offer. None of this has to do with who has the better lawyer or the better argument about taxes. It comes down to who needs the other side more.
This matters for structure specifically because the weaker party usually ends up agreeing to the other side's preferred structure, and then keeps giving up ground on everything negotiated after that. A seller who needs the deal agrees to the asset purchase the buyer wants, then agrees to a longer period where they're on the hook for problems, then a bigger holdback, then a lower price adjustment, each concession seeming reasonable on its own, but really happening because walking away isn't a real option for them. A buyer who really needs this particular business, maybe it's the only real option in their market, ends up agreeing to the seller's share purchase, then waives findings from due diligence they'd normally walk away over, then drops protections they'd normally insist on.
The practical lesson is to know, before you ever start negotiating structure or anything else, which side of that line you're on. If you're the stronger party, that's a real advantage, and you should be willing to use it. Hold your position on structure if it matters to you. Let the other side know you're genuinely fine walking away, because you are. If you're the weaker party, the worst thing you can do is pretend otherwise and bluff a walk-away you can't actually afford. The better move is to figure out early which specific terms matter enough to fight for, give up the rest on purpose instead of one painful concession at a time, and get real protection, like insurance, an escrow account (money held with a neutral third party until agreed conditions are met), or a clean exit timeline, on the points where you have the least room left to give. If you're not sure which side of that line you're on, that's exactly the kind of thing worth talking through before you negotiate structure, not after. Get in touch and we'll walk through it together.
A seller client came to us mid-negotiation having already agreed, before engaging counsel, to the buyer's preferred asset purchase structure, largely because it was the only serious offer on the table and a personal deadline made walking away feel impossible. Once that concession was made, the buyer's subsequent asks, a longer indemnity period, a larger holdback, and a working capital target set unfavorably, all arrived framed as reasonable next steps rather than as a pattern. We were able to claw back some ground on the remaining terms, but the seller's lack of leverage on structure had already set the tone for the rest of the negotiation before we were ever in the room.
What the Negotiation Actually Becomes
Because sellers prefer share deals and buyers prefer asset deals, the structure itself often becomes the first real negotiation in the deal, before anyone even discusses price. A buyer who insists on an asset purchase is pricing in protection from risk. A seller who insists on a share sale is pricing in a clean exit and better tax treatment. Neither side is wrong to want what they want. The structure simply spreads out the risk and value differently, and whoever understands that spread negotiates from a stronger position.
In practice, the answer is rarely as simple as "shares" or "assets." Tools like insurance for representations and warranties (coverage that pays out if a promise made about the business turns out to be false), holdbacks for potential claims, escrow accounts, and price adjustments built into the deal all exist specifically to close the gap between what each side wants from the structure. A well-negotiated deal doesn't just pick a side. It uses these tools so both sides get most of what they actually need.
PPSA and Title Risk
Ontario's Personal Property Security Act governs many consensual security interests in personal property. Attachment and enforceability are addressed in s. 11; perfection by registration in s. 23; continuation in proceeds in s. 25; and buyer protections, including sales in the ordinary course, in s. 28. A search is a snapshot, not a release. The closing plan should identify secured parties, obtain payout letters and registrable discharges, address purchase-money interests and serial-numbered goods, and control funds against delivery of releases.
Purchase price is also risk allocation. Structure affects value, but the purchase agreement converts risk into economics. Parties negotiate debt-free/cash-free assumptions, normalized working capital, leakage, earnouts, rollover equity, holdbacks, escrows, indemnity caps and baskets, specific tax covenants, insurance, and set-off rights. The allocation should match the diligence record: a lower price may compensate for an accepted risk, while a specific indemnity may be better where the risk is identifiable but difficult to value.
The Bottom Line
The choice between a share purchase and an asset purchase isn't some small clause buried at the back of the agreement. It's the foundation the entire deal gets built on, and it should be decided early, on purpose, and with a clear understanding of what each side is actually giving up. Sellers who don't understand why a buyer wants an asset deal end up surprised at closing. Buyers who don't understand why a seller is resisting one end up walking away from deals that could have worked with the right structure. Whether you're buying or selling in Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, or Toronto, getting the structure and the leverage right before you negotiate price is the difference between a deal that closes well and one that doesn't close at all.
Five Common Mistakes
- "A share sale does not make every contract consent-free; read the change-of-control language."
- "The GST/HST election is conditional, joint, and technical, not a box to tick after closing."
- "A PPSA search finds registrations; it does not, by itself, deliver clean title."
- "An asset structure alone does not shield a buyer from the CRA's deemed-trust claims on unremitted source deductions or GST/HST."
- "Conceding deal structure before you know who has leverage tends to set the tone for every concession that follows."
Frequently Asked Questions
Often a share sale is attractive because proceeds are received by shareholders and qualifying individuals may access the capital gains deduction. But qualification, indemnity exposure, buyer pricing, minority holders, corporate liabilities, and closing certainty can outweigh that preference.
The corporation remains party to its contracts, so assignment is generally unnecessary. However, change-of-control, notice, termination, exclusivity, credit, and regulatory provisions can still require action or make the deal uneconomic.
Not automatically in every transaction. The commercial plan, employment offers, union arrangements, and applicable law control. If the buyer employs them in connection with the sale, Employment Standards Act, 2000, s. 9 can preserve statutory continuity; common-law and contractual consequences also require advice.
Often supplies are taxable unless an exemption or valid election applies. Excise Tax Act s. 167 may relieve qualifying business transfers from tax collection at closing, but eligibility and excluded assets must be reviewed and the election properly made.
No categorical answer is safe. Source-deduction and GST/HST deemed trusts have different texts and judicial treatment. The parties should investigate arrears, obtain appropriate certificates or comfort where available, use payout and holdback mechanics, and get transaction-specific tax advice.
Related Articles
Primary Authorities Cited
This article is general legal information, current to July 17, 2026. It is not legal, tax, accounting, or investment advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Ontario and federal law, administrative practice, and the facts of each transaction can change the result. Obtain advice from qualified legal and tax professionals before acting.
Forgione Deal and Corporate Counsel · Burlington · Mississauga · Oakville · Vaughan · Toronto