Income Tax Severed Letters - 2016-11-16

Ruling

2015 Ruling 2015-0578051R3 - Variation of trust indenture

addition of preferred units to a listed MFT’s capital
addition of preferred units not disposition

Principal Issues: Whether the variation of a trust indenture to create and issue XXXXXXXXXX Preferred Units of a mutual fund trust would result in (1) a disposition by the trust of its assets or in a resettlement of the trust, (2) a disposition by the existing unitholders of their units, (3) the application of 104(7.1).

Position: (1) no (2) no (3) no

Reasons: (1) The changes are not considered material or significant to result in a resettlement of the trust and it is submitted that there will be no resettlement as a matter of provincial law. (2) No cash consideration or other proceeds of disposition will be received by the unitholders in respect of the diminishment of their rights as a consequence of the amendments. Further, the changes to the trust indenture in the given instance, when viewed as a whole do not support the conclusion that there would be a disposition. (3) Consistent with previous rulings.

2015 Ruling 2015-0610391R3 - Whether 75(2) will apply to new trusts

Unedited CRA Tags
75(2); 108(1)(g)
75(2) does not apply to trust fund where the income therefrom but not the capital can be distributed to the settlor, and no encroachment decision occurs during his lifetime
interests vested (but not distributed) before 21st anniversary

Principal Issues: 1.Determination of whether subsection 75(2) would apply in a proposed reorganization involving the set-up of new family trusts. 2. If the 108(1)(g) exclusion is applicable so that 21 year rule will not apply.

Position: 1. 75(2) does not apply. 2. No ruling given since no definite time period proposed.

Reasons: 1. Conditions not met per trust terms. 2. Opinion given.

Technical Interpretation - External

2 August 2016 External T.I. 2014-0544941E5 F - Interaction between ss. 111(12) and 80.01(3)

Unedited CRA Tags
80(1), 80(2)(k), 80.01(3), 111(4), 111(12)
no accrued FX loss on a loan owing by a target to a sub is realized on an AOC where there is a same-day amalgamation and no time-stamping
deemed settlement under 80.01(3) before operation of 111(12)

Principal Issues: In a particular situation, Aco holds all of the issued and outstanding shares of the capital stock of Bco. Both corporations are TCCs and CCPCs. On January 1, 20X0 Aco becomes indebted to Bco in the amount of US$1,000,000. On January 1, 20X0, the US dollar is at par with the Canadian dollar. On January 1, 20X5, control of Aco (and of Bco) is acquired. No election is made under subsection 256(9) with respect of the acquisition of control. The exchange rate in effect immediately before the acquisition of control is US$1 = CAN$1.10. On the same day, Aco and Bco are amalgamated to form Amalco. No specific time of amalgamation is shown on the certificate of amalgamation. Whether Aco’s deemed loss, pursuant to subsection 111(12), impacts the computation of the cost amount of the debt, for Aco, for the purposes of subsection 80.01(3).

Position: No.

Reasons: In the particular situation, the debt is deemed to have been settled immediately before the time that is immediately before the amalgamation by a payment made by the debtor and received by the creditor of an amount equal to the creditor’s cost amount. As such, there is no tax consequence for both Aco and Bco. However, as the debt would not have been outstanding immediately before the amalgamation (which is also immediately before the acquisition of control), subsection 111(12) is not applicable in the particular situation.

24 June 2016 External T.I. 2015-0571471E5 F - Passe de ski familiale

Unedited CRA Tags
6(1)a)
no taxable benefit if all employees given season’s pass at ski resort/gift policy also applicable

Principal Issues: 1) Est-ce qu’une passe de ski de saison familiale donnant accès aux pistes de ski / planche à neige pour une saison, offerte par un employeur à ses employés constitue un avantage imposable dans une situation donnée? / Whether a family season ski and snowboard pass offered by an employer to his/her employees is a taxable benefit in a given situation? 2) Si oui, est-ce que la valeur de la passe de ski de saison familiale peut être établie en fonction du coût pour l’employeur? / If so, can the value of the family season ski pass be established at cost for the employer?

Position: 1) Question de fait. / Question of fact. 2) Non / No.

Reasons: 1) Avantage imposable en vertu de 6(1)a) mais la position administrative énoncée au paragraphe 33 du IT-470R ou la politique sur les cadeaux et récompenses pourrait également être applicable. / Taxable benefit as per 6(1)a) but either the administrative position in paragraph 33 of IT-470R or the CRA’s gift and award policy could be applicable. 2) Le coût pour l’employeur n’est pas représentatif de la valeur de l’avantage que reçoit l’employé. / The cost for the employer is not representative of the value of the benefit received by the employee.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

4 August 2016 Internal T.I. 2016-0645521I7 - 90(6) & sale of creditor affiliate

Unedited CRA Tags
90(6); 90(8)(a); 90(14)
deduction not dependent on FA being creditor affiliate at repayment time
inclusion not dependent of maintenance of creditor affiliate status

Principal Issues: Whether the exception in 90(8)(a) would apply where the "creditor affiliate" is sold for cash consideration before the 2-year time limit?

Position: No

Reasons: 90(8)(a) requires a repayment of the debt.