Not by itself. A majority stake is normally sufficient on its own, but a management agreement that gives operational authority to the minority owner can defeat it. What is examined is where decisions actually sit.
The percentage and the power can point different ways
Hypothetical example: a Grand Bay-Westfield couple sign for fifty-five per cent of a U.S. land-clearing company while the seller keeps forty-five per cent and a management agreement under which he sets crew assignments, quotes jobs, signs supplier contracts and controls the operating account for five years. On the ownership test they pass.
On the develop-and-direct element they are passive owners of a business someone else runs, which is the element the category exists to police. The repair is to redraft before closing: keep the seller for a defined transition period with a consulting scope, list reserved matters that require the majority owner's approval, put the buyer on the bank mandate, and give the buyer the power to terminate the agreement. Then the file can show authority in the documents rather than asserting it in a covering letter.