Income Tax Severed Letters - 2021-03-10

Ruling

2020 Ruling 2020-0865971R3 - Loss consolidation arrangement

Unedited CRA Tags
20(1)(c), 55(2) *

Principal Issues: Whether the LCA is acceptable

Position: Yes

Reasons: The proposed transactions fall within CRA's policy position

Technical Interpretation - External

23 June 2020 External T.I. 2020-0849221E5 F - SSUC - Entité déterminée et institution publique

Substantially the same as 2020-0848721E5 F
Unedited CRA Tags
149(1)(a), 149(1)(b), 149(1)(c), 149(1)(d) to (d.6), 149(1.1), 125.7(1), 125.7(2) *

Principales Questions: Est-ce que l'entité est admissible à la SSUC? / Is the entity eligible for the CEWS?

Position Adoptée: Question de fait / Question of fact

Raisons: Ça dépend si l'entité est une institution publique ou non. Des commentaires généraux sont fournis pour aider à déterminer si l'entité est une institution publique ou non. / It depends if it is a public institution or not. General comments are provided to help determine if the entity is a public institution or not.

23 June 2020 External T.I. 2020-0849211E5 F - SSUC - Entité déterminée et institution publique

substantially the same as 2020-0848721E5 F
Unedited CRA Tags
149(1)(a), 149(1)(b), 149(1)(c), 149(1)(d) to (d.6), 149(1.1), 125.7(1), 125.7(2) *

Principales Questions: Est-ce que l'entité est admissible à la SSUC? / Is the entity eligible for the CEWS?

Position Adoptée: Question de fait / Question of fact

Raisons: Ça dépend si l'entité est une institution publique ou non. Des commentaires généraux sont fournis pour aider à déterminer si l'entité est une institution publique ou non. / It depends if it is a public institution or not. General comments are provided to help determine if the entity is a public institution or not.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

20 January 2021 Internal T.I. 2019-0832211I7 - Cross-border Restricted Share Units

Unedited CRA Tags
7(1)(a); 110(1); 126(1) *
source of RSU benefit for FTC purposes determined based on an OECD-inspired hybrid methodology approach
OECD-inspired hybrid methodology for apportioning the source of RSU benefits between countries

Principal Issues: Sourcing of RSU benefits when employment is exercised within and outside of Canada.

Position: General guidance provided.

Reasons: The OECD Commentary on sourcing cross-border employee stock options is instructive.

13 November 2020 Internal T.I. 2020-0864831I7 - Equity award plan and recharge agreement

Unedited CRA Tags
7(3)(b), 248(1) “salary deferral arrangement”, 20(1)(oo), 15(1), 212(2)(a), 214(3)(a), 246(1) *
para. (k) not available where RSUs are granted early in Year 1 and vest 36 months later
s. 7(3)(b) did not apply to recharge agreement reimbursements made to a parent that had the discretion to settle the RSUs in cash
reimbursement for RSUs issued by parent did not engage s. 15(1) or 246(1)
no agreement to issue shares under an RSU if the company can choose to settle in cash

Principal Issues: 1. Does the paragraph (k) exception in the SDA definition apply to a hypothetical RSU plan? 2. Will paragraph 7(3)(b) apply to deny a deduction if the USCo parent corporation of the CanCo employer has discretion as to whether an RSU will be settled in the form of one USCo share or an equivalent-value cash payment? 3. Will Part XIII tax apply to reimbursements made under an agreement between CanCo and USCo to make USCo whole for payments of RSUs in cash or USCo shares made to CanCo employees under the Plan?

Position: 1. Likely not. 2. No. 3. No.

Reasons: 1. We generally assume that an award is attributable to past service if employees receive something of value on the grant date. In this case because the grant is made early in the year, the service year likely preceded the grant year. The paragraph (k) exception to the SDA definition would not apply since the settlement date is more than three years after the end of the apparent service year. 2. There is no agreement to sell or issue shares to an employee for purposes of subsection 7(1) since USCo has discretion to settle an RSU in cash. 3. A reimbursement payment would be made pursuant to a legal agreement in return for equivalent consideration paid by USCo to CanCo's employees and would not therefore be a benefit for purposes of subsections 15(1) and 246(1) and Part XIII.