That is correct. You can imagine the joy I get sitting in a boardroom and telling two siblings that they are unrelated for the purposes of splitting up the business. They sometimes question, at that point, whether they should be talking to me or somebody else on the matter. For the purposes of section 55, siblings are deemed to be unrelated. There is a provision in one part of section 55, which is probably one of the most complicated sections in the act.
It is a big challenge from that standpoint, specifically in our area here in southwestern Manitoba. I think I heard on the previous panel a lot of discussion about the growth of corporate farms. I remember the 2016 census. I think they grew to be 22%, up from 11%, in the five years since the previous census. What we're now seeing is that a lot of those farms that were started by maybe a father and mother are now with those siblings. You have one, two or three siblings operating a farm together and you try to split that farm into two, because, of course, the longer you leave it, the bigger that family tree will grow and the more complicated the dynamics of the family relationships will be.
For purposes of following the provisions in paragraph 55(3)(b).... I have heard in arguments from the other side that they can still use that provision. There is a 1% tolerance on the asset types. As you can imagine, these parties are unrelated for the purposes of that section, but they're related for the purposes of determining the value. It becomes very complicated to actually make something fit the rules.