News of Note

Income Tax Severed Letters 9 April 2025

This morning's release of four severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.

CRA provides instances where it may require the production of personal bank statements

After CRA was given the example of auditors auditing a private company and asking for the personal banking records of all the shareholders, CRA listed the following as situations where it may require personal banking information, which it considers itself authorized to do pursuant to s. 231.1(1):

  • Where it conducts an indirect verification of income, in which case it must obtain the personal banking records of the shareholders of the closely held corporation, as well as their spouses and common law partners, and all contributing members of each household unit.
  • Where it is unable to rely on accounting records due to weak internal controls or the absence of segregation of duties.
  • When inconsistencies are noted between the apparent lifestyle of the taxpayer and the reported income.
  • In order to verify transactions between the corporation and the shareholder.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2024 Alberta CPA Roundtable, Q.8(a) under s. 231.1(1).

CRA indicates that it has no statutory authority to postpone collection of source deductions

CRA indicated that the Income Tax Act, Employment Insurance Act and Canada Pension Plan Act contain no equivalent provisions to s. 314(2) or 315(3) of the Excise Tax Act regarding the collection of source deduction trust funds, so that there is no statutory authority providing for the postponement of collection action on amounts owing for such amounts. However, CRA Collections has the administrative authority to withdraw any collection actions, such as garnishment, upon entering into a payment arrangement with the taxpayer.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2024 Alberta CPA Roundtable, Q.3 under ITA s. 222(2) and ETA s. 315(3).

Total Energy – Federal Court of Appeal confirms that the use of losses of an insolvent public company by a SIFT trust was an abuse of s. 111(5)

In September 2007, a company (“Nexia”), which traded in loss companies, acquired all of non-voting common shares of an insolvent public corporation (“Biomerge”) (representing 80% of its equity) and 45% of its voting common shares. In May 2009, a plan of arrangement was implemented under which the units of an income fund (“Total”), which was becoming subject to tax under the “SIFT” rules, were exchanged for new common shares of Biomerge, the existing voting common shares of Biomerge were largely cashed-out, and Total was wound-up into Biomerge (now, “New Total”) pursuant to s. 88.1(2). The former Total unitholders held 99.8% of the New Total equity.

In confirming the decision below that these transactions were an abuse of s. 111(5), Stratas JA indicated that:

  • It was immaterial that Deans Knight did not deal with trust conversions, as the “object, spirit, and purpose of s. 111(5) does not change depending on the facts of the particular case nor on the status of the acquiror.”
  • It was also immaterial that s. 256(7)(c)(i) (dealing specifically with a transaction of this type) was added only subsequently (“Deans Knight … did not look at other provisions enacted after s. 111(5) in order to determine the object, spirit, and purpose of s. 111(5).”
  • The Tax Court had appropriately found “that this particular series of transactions frustrates the object, spirit, and purpose of s. 111(5), which is [quoting Deans Knight] ‘to prevent corporations from being acquired by unrelated parties in order to deduct their unused losses against income from another business for the benefit of new shareholders’."

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Total Energy Services Inc. v. Canada, 2025 FCA 77 under s. 245(4).

We have translated 8 more CRA interpretations

We have translated two CRA interpretations released last week and a further 6 CRA interpretations released in November and October of 2000. Their descriptors and links appear below.

These are additions to our set of 3,159 full-text translations of French-language Technical Interpretation and Roundtable items (plus some ruling letters) of the Income Tax Rulings Directorate, which covers all of the last 24 ½ years of releases of such items by the Directorate. These translations are subject to our paywall (applicable after the 5th of each month).

Bundle Date Translated severed letter Summaries under Summary descriptor
2025-04-02 19 February 2025 External T.I. 2018-0744821E5 F - Régime d’assurance collective - groupe de personne Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(1) - Paragraph 6(1)(a) - Subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) for a 2-person plan, a higher level of benefits for the majority shareholder would suggest that there was an individual policy for him, rather than being a group plan component
Income Tax Act - Section 15 - Subsection 15(1) rebuttable presumption that benefits of shareholder-employees from disability plan premiums were taxable/ meaning of "contemplated" shareholder
11 March 2025 External T.I. 2020-0845931E5 F - Transfert d’une propriété intellectuelle Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Capital Gain vs. Profit - Patents and Know-How the consequences of a sale of IP by a partnership for the benefit of a university and its researchers might be addressed in a ruling
2000-11-10 25 October 2000 External T.I. 2000-0017065 F - CONVENTION DE RETRAITE ET ASSURANCE Income Tax Act - Section 207.6 - Subsection 207.6(2) no Pt. XI.3 tax to RCA trust on withdrawals from the life insurance policy funding the RCA
13 October 2000 Internal T.I. 2000-0042477 F - depenses d'emploi-vendeur valeurs mobiliers Income Tax Act - Section 8 - Subsection 8(1) - Paragraph 8(1)(f) - Subparagraph 8(1)(f)(ii) requirement to perform duties away from the office can be implied
18 September 2000 Internal T.I. 2000-0043647 F - Perte transfert bâtiment personne affiliée Income Tax Act - Section 13 - Subsection 13(21.2) - Paragraph 13(21.2)(b) proceeds of disposition of a building are determined first under s. 13(21.1) before applying s. 13(21.2)(b)
Income Tax Act - Section 13 - Subsection 13(21.1) s. 13(21.1) applied first before stop-loss rule in s. 13(21.2) applied
2000-10-27 19 October 2000 External T.I. 2000-0027795 F - SOCIETES PRIVEES SOUS CONTROLE CDN Income Tax Act - Section 125 - Subsection 125(3) corporations controlled by the provincial Crown, required to share their business limit
Income Tax Act - Section 181.5 - Subsection 181.5(6) corporations controlled by the provincial Crown would not be required to share their capital deduction
Income Tax Act - Section 125 - Subsection 125(7) - Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation corporations controlled by the provincial Crown treated as CCPCs
Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Person provincial Crown is a person
23 October 2000 External T.I. 2000-0038305 F - REMBOURSEMENT DE PRIME CONJOINT MEME SEXE Income Tax Act - Section 146 - Subsection 146(8.1) election to have the deceased by a common-law partner could be made with deceased’s executor, thereby enabling a s. 146(8.1) election
2000-10-13 2 October 2000 External T.I. 2000-0015825 F - ACTIFS AUX FINS DE LA LOI Income Tax Act - Section 110.6 - Subsection 110.6(1) - Qualified Small Business Corporation Share - Paragraph (c) a future income tax asset (including one not recognized on the balance sheet) must be taken into account for QSBCS and SBC purposes, but is not used in the business
Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Small Business Corporation a future income tax asset is an asset for QSBCS and SBC purposes, but is not used in the business

CRA considers that the specified corporate income carve-out may be avoided by earning active business income through rather than from a private corporation

A real estate broker carried on his practice through a wholly-owned corporation (A Co), which received all of its commissions, net of service charges, from a real estate brokerage firm (Realty Co). Realty Co was 25% owned by a holding company of the individual, and was otherwise owned by unrelated persons. Was such commission income of A Co excluded pursuant to s. 125(1)(a)(i)(B) from its active business income by virtue of being described in (a)(i)(A) of the “specified corporate income” (SCI) definition?

Given that (a)(i)(A) of the SCI definition was satisfied (the shareholder of A Co held an indirect interest in Realty Co.), this question turned on the application of (a)(i)(B) of that definition, which tested whether “all or substantially all” of the active business income of A Co for the year was from the provision of services or property to persons (other than the private corporation, i.e., Realty Co) with which it dealt at arm’s length. CRA indicated that this turned on the factual question of whether “A Co is receiving all or substantially all of its commission income from the provision of real estate services to clients with which it deals at arm’s length, and not Realty Co,” i.e., was A Co providing its services to Realty Co or to arm’s length clients?

This response perhaps implies that the SCI carve-out could be avoided with the appropriate structuring.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 23 January 2025 External T.I. 2024-1030091E5 under s. 125(7) – SCI – (a)(i)(B).

CRA notes that a supplementary disability plan for the company’s majority shareholder and another executive might not qualify as a s. 6(1)(a)(i) group plan

A corporation, which already provided a group health and disability plan to all its employees, created a supplementary disability insurance plan for two of its executive employees, one of whom was the majority shareholder.

CRA indicated that if there was “a higher level of benefits for the employee who is the majority shareholder compared to the level of benefits for the other employee in the group, such a policy would probably not be considered a component of a group insurance plan, but rather an individual disability insurance policy.” Accordingly, even if the executives received their benefit from the employer payment of the premiums qua employee rather than shareholder, the exemption pursuant to s. 6(1)(a)(i) from the taxability of that benefit under s. 6(1)(a) would not be available to the executives.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 19 February 2025 External T.I. 2018-0744821E5 F under s. 6(1)(a)(i) and s. 15(1).

GST/HST Severed Letters December 2024-February 2025

This morning's release of nine severed letters from the Excise and GST/HST Rulings Directorate (identified by them as their December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025 releases) is now available for your viewing.

CRA indicates that an Arizona limited partnership is a partnership rather than a corporation for ITA purposes

Two Arizona limited partnerships holding rental properties were to be treated as partnerships rather than corporations under the two-step approach of CRA to entity classification. Although they had separate legal personality, that by itself did not preclude them from being classified as partnerships. On the other hand, they had various attributes of common law partnerships including importantly, that the general partner had unlimited liability.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 28 November 2024 Internal T.I. 2024-1014251I7 under s. 96.

CRA indicates that it might address the consequences of a sale of IP by a partnership for the benefit of a university and its researchers

A university transferred the intellectual property developed for it by its researchers in the course of their employment to a limited partnership of the university, but agreed that they would receive 50% of the resulting net income from the commercialization of the IP. When asked about the tax treatment of a lump sum received on a sale by the partnership of IP and shared with the researchers, CRA indicated that this was a question of fact that might be addressed in a request for a ruling, but not for a technical interpretation.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 11 March 2025 External T.I. 2020-0845931E5 F under s. 9 – capital gain v. profit – patents.