Income Tax Severed Letters - 2012-01-27

Ruling

2012 Ruling 2011-0408991R3 - Split-up butterfly

Unedited CRA Tags
55(3)(b); 80; 80.01; 84(3); 85(1); 112; 245(2); Part IV tax; Part IV.1 tax; Part VI.1 tax

Principal Issues: Split-up butterfly transaction.

Position: Favourable Rulings given.

Reasons: In compliance with the law and previous positions.

2012 Ruling 2010-0391271R3 - Deemed Limited Partner & Specified Member

Unedited CRA Tags
96(2.4)(b) and (c), 40(3.14)(b) and (c), "specified member" definition in 248(1)

Principal Issues: 1- Whether certain of the general partners are deemed limited partners by virtue of the application of 96(2.4)(b) or (c) and 40(3.14)(b) or (c). 2- Whether the general partners meet the exception in paragraph (b)(i) of the "specified member" definition.

Position: 1- Favourable narrow rulings provided. 2- Question of fact. Comments provided.

Reasons: 1- Paragraphs 96(2.4)(b) and 40(3.14)(b) have similar wording and refer to paragraph 96(2.2)(d) which contains a "purpose" test that is considered not to be met in the circumstances due to the nature of the particular agreements. For paragraphs 96(2.4)(c) and 40(3.14)(c), condition (ii) is not met. 2- Question of fact which cannot be determined until after the fact.

2011 Ruling 2011-0417351R3 - Reduction of stated capital

Unedited CRA Tags
84(2), 84(4.1), 53(2), 40(3)

Principal Issues: Whether subsection 84(2) applies to reduction of stated capital.

Position: Yes

Reasons: Complies with law and CRA administrative positions.

2011 Ruling 2011-0408871R3 F - Monetization

Unedited CRA Tags
245, 20(1)(c), 54
no disposition on monetization transaction

Principales Questions: Whether GAAR will apply to the proposed transactions?

Position Adoptée: No

Raisons: No avoidance transactions because of the purposes of the proposed transactions in this very unusual situation. One should not assume that the GAAR would not be applicable in other monetization arrangements based on the present ruling.

2011 Ruling 2011-0427331R3 - Loss Consolidations

Unedited CRA Tags
20(1)(c), 112(2.1), 12(1)(c), 9, 245(2)

Principal Issues: Is the amendment to the loss utilization arrangement acceptable?

Position: YES

Reasons: Meets the established position

2011 Ruling 2011-0426891R3 - Supplemental ruling

Unedited CRA Tags
84(2); 84(4.1)

Principal Issues: Minor changes to facts of ruling 2011-041735

Position: Ruling modified

Reasons: Changes do not affect validity of rulings given

2011 Ruling 2010-0356191R3 F - Monetization

Unedited CRA Tags
20(1)(c), 20(1)(e), 245, 54

Principales Questions: 1. Whether GAAR will apply to the proposed transactions? 2. Whether interest on the loan will be deductible under 20(1)(c)?

Position Adoptée: 1. No. 2. Yes

Raisons: 1. No avoidance transaction because of the purposes of the proposed transactions in this very unusual situation. One should not assume that the GAAR would not be applicable in other monetization arrangements based on the present ruling. 2. IT-533

Ministerial Correspondence

6 January 2012 Ministerial Correspondence 2011-0429561M4 - Swap transactions in RRSPs and RRIFs

Unedited CRA Tags
ITA 207.01(1) "advantage" and "swap transaction", 207.05

Principal Issues: Does the 2011 federal budget effectively prohibit all swap transactions in RRSPs and RRIFs?

Position: Yes, subject to limited exceptions.

Reasons: The amendments in Bill C-13 extend the existing TFSA rules for swap transactions in Part XI.01 of the Act to RRSPs and RRIFs. These rules eliminate all current and future benefits associated with swap transactions, regardless of whether the transaction occurs at fair market value. This serves, in effect, as a prohibition on swap transactions. Position is consistent with statement in Department of Finance News Release dated October 16, 2009, which first introduced prohibition on swap transactions for TFSAs.

Technical Interpretation - External

23 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0422941E5 - METC- Collection and Storage of Cord Blood

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(a) and 118.2(2)(o)

Principal Issues: Whether amounts paid for the collection and storage of umbilical cord blood qualify as medical expenses for purposes of 118.2(2).

Position: No.

Reasons: Not a service relating to an existing medical condition or disease. Not a diagnostic procedure.

23 January 2012 External T.I. 2012-0433101E5 - Medical expenses - honey nasal and sinus rinse

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(n); 5701

Principal Issues: Whether an amount paid by the taxpayer for honey nasal and sinus rinse would qualify as a medical expense for purposes of calculating the medical expense tax credit.

Position: No, if the honey nasal and sinus rinse is lawfully available without a prescription then it would not generally qualify as a medical expense for purposes of the medical expense tax credit.

Reasons: Paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act.

20 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0427621E5 - METC- food allergies

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(r)

Principal Issues: Whether an individual with food allergies can claim the medical expense tax credit for gluten-free foods

Position: Insufficient information. General comments provided.

Reasons: It is not clear whether the individual has celiac disease.

19 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0414341E5 F - Déf revenu brut location Partie XIII

Unedited CRA Tags
212(1)d); 214(1); 215(3); 216(4)
election permits withholding only on net amount remitted by agent-manager to NR owner
agent-manager required to withhold on gross rent rather than net rent remitted absent s. 216(4) election

Principales Questions: Dans l'éventualité où le propriétaire de l'immeuble ne réside pas au Canada, l'impôt de la Partie XIII doit-il s'appliquer en regard des sommes effectivement versées par le gestionnaire au propriétaire (soit 50% du revenu de location de l'immeuble moins les commissions aux agences de voyages) ou des loyers bruts perçus par le gestionnaire pour le compte du propriétaire?

Position Adoptée: L'impôt de la partie XIII est applicable en regard du revenu des loyers bruts perçus par le gestionnaire à moins qu'un choix en vertu paragraphe 216(4) ne soit effectué.

Raisons: La Loi.

18 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0391781E5 - Trust Distribution of Life Insurance Policy

Unedited CRA Tags
148(7), 107(2), 107(4.1), 107(5), 107(2.1), 107(2.001), 182.1(4)(b)(iii), 128.1(10)(l), 138.1(1)(e)

Principal Issues: See below

Position: See Below

Reasons: See below

9 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0427461E5 F - Attribution Rules and Suspended Loss Rules

Unedited CRA Tags
40(3.6), 73(1), 74.1(1) and 74.2(1)
stop-loss rule in s, 40(3.6) trumped s. 74.2(1) so that denied capital loss was added to transferee spouse’s common share ACB
stop-loss rule in s, 40(3.6) gave ACB addition to common shares of transferee spouse who redeemed preferred shares gifted to him by spouse

Principal Issues: Ms. A and her spouse, Mr. B, each hold 50% of the common shares of the capital stock of OPCO, which is a CCPC. Ms. A also holds preferred shares of the capital stock of OPCO. The fair market value, paid-up capital and adjusted cost base (hereinafter "ACB"), to Ms. A of her OPCO preferred shares are, respectively, $2,000,000, $200 and $1,000,000. Ms. A transfers to Mr. B half of her OPCO preferred shares for no consideration. This transfer is made on a tax-deferred basis pursuant to subsection 73(1). Five years later, OPCO redeems the preferred shares of its capital stock held by Mr. B. At this particular time, Mr. B is deemed to have received a dividend pursuant to subsection 84(3) in the amount of $999,900. This deemed dividend is deemed to be Ms. A's dividend pursuant to subsection 74.1(1). At the same time, Mr. B also incurs a loss in the amount of $499,900. Whether the attribution rules would apply to the loss incurred by Mr. B.

Position: The loss incurred by Mr. B would be deemed to be nil pursuant to paragraph 40(3.6)(a). Consequently, there would be no allowable capital loss that could be attributed to Ms. A under subsection 74.2(1). The loss, determined without reference to paragraph 40(2)(g) and subsection 40(3.6), would be added to the ACB to Mr. B of his common shares of the capital stock of OPCO pursuant to paragraph 40(3.6)(b).

Reasons: According to the law.

4 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0417371E5 F - Frais de garde d'enfants

child care corporation can render qualifying child care services to the child of its sole shareholder

Principales Questions: Est-ce que les frais de garde d'enfants pourraient se qualifier de frais de garde d'enfants lorsque la mère d'un enfant est l'unique actionnaire et employée de la société rendant les services de garde à cet enfant?

Position Adoptée: Oui

Raisons: Analyse législative.

4 January 2012 External T.I. 2011-0418291E5 F - Transfert entre conjoints

Unedited CRA Tags
73(1); 74.2
s. 74.2 attribution cease on divorce/s. 74.5(3)(b) election available after marriage breakdown

Principales Questions: Est-ce que les articles 73 et 74.2 s'appliquent dans une situation particulière?

Position Adoptée: Commentaire généraux.

Raisons: Situation réelle sur laquelle nous ne pouvons que donner des commentaires généraux sur l'application de la Loi.

16 January 2011 External T.I. 2011-0423951E5 - QSBC Shares

Unedited CRA Tags
110.6(1), 125(7), 248(1)

Principal Issues: Is active business carried on primarily in Canada?

Position: Question of fact.

Reasons: General comments.

Conference

7 October 2011 APFF Roundtable Q. 23, 2011-0412111C6 F - Validity of Price Adjustment Clause

Unedited CRA Tags
85(1)(e.2); 85(7.1)
price adjustment clause does not require filing amended election
validity of price adjustment clause does not depend on filing an amended election

Principal Issues: Confirmation of CRA position regarding validity of price adjustment clause as expressed at the 2007 APFF congress.

Position: Previous position confirmed.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

4 January 2012 Internal T.I. 2011-0423781I7 - False Statement or Omission Penalty - 163(2)

Unedited CRA Tags
163(2), 163(2.1), 118.1(3)

Principal Issues: Whether the penalty for a false statement or omission pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act, in circumstances involving a charitable donation, is equal to 50% of the tax avoided by the non-refundable tax credit.

Position: Yes.

Reasons: The wording of subsection 163(2) provides for the penalty for a false statement or omission to be calculated as the greater of $100 and 50% of the increase in the tax that would be payable which is attributable to the false statement or omission.

4 January 2012 Internal T.I. 2011-0408081I7 F - Transactions entre une société et ses actionnaires

Unedited CRA Tags
15(1); 13(7)e)(i)
s. 13(7)(e)(i) capital cost equals consideration paid even where in excess of FMV

Principales Questions: Quel est le coût en capital réputé aux termes du sous-alinéa 13(7)e)(i) lorsqu'un actionnaire vend un bien amortissable à sa société pour une somme supérieure à la juste valeur marchande?

Position Adoptée: Le coût en capital est celui qui est déterminé aux termes du sous-alinéa 13(7)e)(i). La différence entre le prix de vente et la JVM du bien peut constituer un avantage à l'actionnaire.

Raisons: Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

28 December 2011 Internal T.I. 2011-0422791I7 F - Fraction à risque

Unedited CRA Tags
54-prix de base rajusté; 53(1)e); 53(2)c); 96(2.2)

Principales Questions: 1) Le montant à recevoir par un commanditaire d'une société en commandite (SEC) entre-t-il dans le calcul du prix de base rajusté de sa participation aux fins du calcul de sa fraction à risque?
2) La position relative à l'apport de connaissance d'un associé d'une société de personnes prise par l'ARC dans le cadre de la table ronde du congrès de l'APFF de 1991 à la question 6.1 est-elle toujours valide?

Position Adoptée: 1) Les prêts ou avances faits par un commanditaire à une SEC ne constituent pas un apport de capital aux fins du calcul du PBR de sa participation dans cette dernière.
2) Oui. L'ARC accepte que la valeur des connaissances ou du savoir-faire d'un associé soit prise en compte pour déterminer sa participation dans les profits de la société de personnes.

Raisons: 1) et 2) Position de longue date de l'ARC.

16 September 2011 Internal T.I. 2010-0383571I7 - Transfer of Property to a US Head Office

Unedited CRA Tags
13(1), 13(7), 13(9), 20(16), 76.1 of the Act

Principal Issues: (1) Whether a corporation may claim a terminal loss or capital loss when it transfers depreciable property, capital property and intangible property from a Branch operation in Canada to its Head Office in the US. (2) Whether the deferral on an unrealized foreign exchange gain is permitted on a "loan" from the corporate Head Office to the Canadian branch operation in the situation where the branch is winding down.

Position: (1) There is a deemed disposition for purposes of the Act. The branch should record the disposition of the equipment at its fair market value (FMV) at the time the equipment is moved to the US Head Office expressed in Canadian dollars. (2) The "loan" between the US Head Office and the branch is not considered to be a debt obligation. Since a loan does not exist, there can be no foreign exchange implications for income tax purposes in respect of the "loan" from the US Head Office.

Reasons: (1) Paragraph 13(7)(a) deems depreciable property to be disposed of and reacquired at fair market value at the time there is a change in the purpose of its use from gaining or producing income to some other purpose. (2) The branch is not considered to be a separate legal person from the US Head Office (they are the same person). There is no debt obligation; therefore, section 76.1 would not be applicable.