News of Note
CRA notes that where the designated beneficiary of an RRSP is the annuitant’s ex-spouse, the estate of the deceased rather than the ex-spouse will bear the death tax
Email this ContentCRA confirmed that, generally, where the designated beneficiary of an RRSP was the former spouse of the annuitant, that beneficiary would received the RRSP proceeds on a tax-free basis to the extent of the FMV on death, so that the estate of the deceased (and, thus, ultimately its beneficiaries), would instead bear the full tax liability associated with the RRSP. In particular, the amount that was deemed to have been received as income by the deceased annuitant under s. 146(8.8) equal to the RRSP FMV on death would be excluded from the former spouse’s income and, thus, would be received tax-free.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable, Q.7 under s. 146(8.8) and s. 160.2(1).
We have translated 5 more CRA interpretations
We have translated a further 5 CRA interpretations released in April of 1999. Their descriptors and links appear below.
These are additions to our set of 3,590 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 27 years of releases of such items by the Directorate. These translations are subject to our paywall (applicable after the 5th of each month).
Ontario Tire Stewardship – Tax Court of Canada finds that s. 296(2) required a CRA assessment to take into account unclaimed ITCs for prior stale-dated months
In its December 2013 return, OTS claimed over $16 million in ITCs for the preceding four years, which the Minister denied on the basis that OTS was not engaged in commercial activity. Consequent on the determination in Stewardship Ontario that OTS was engaged in commercial activity, in January 2019, the Minister reassessed OTS to allow the originally claimed ITCs but disallowed an additional claim for over $1 million in ITCs earned in 2012 (the “unclaimed ITCs”) that OTS had realized in August 2018 it had failed to claim in its December 2013 return.
OTS argued that, notwithstanding the four-year limitation in s. 225(4)(b) on carrying forward ITCs, the Minister was required to allow the unclaimed ITCs pursuant to s. 296(2). The Crown, however, contended that s. 296(2) only allowed ITCs that arose in the month of the return in question (December 2013) since s. 296(2)(a) did not include the phrase “or a preceding reporting period.”
In rejecting the Crown’s submission, Visser J. noted that the definition of “net tax” in s. 225(1) (as also used s. s. 296(1)) explicitly provides that net tax for a particular reporting period includes ITCs from preceding reporting periods, and then stated:
Where one provision operates by reference to an already defined term or formula in an earlier section, it is neither necessary nor reasonably expected for Parliament to repeat every detail. Parliament is presumed to avoid superfluous repetition. …
[T]o restrict subsection 296(2) as requested by the Respondent would increase the cascading of GST/HST and undermine the legislative scheme, which promotes registrants’ ability to carry forward and claim ITCs.
Regarding the Crown’s argument that s. 296(4) did not permit a refund for unclaimed ITCs from an earlier reporting period, Visser J. indicated that matters dealing with the collection and reimbursement of tax under the ETA are generally within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and were outside his jurisdiction, and noted a similar observation in Pawlak.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Ontario Tire Stewardship v. The King, 2026 TCC 77 under ETA s. 296(2).
CRA confirms the application of its 15-day remittance policy in Guide T4061 to a deemed payment under s. 214(3)(f)(i)
Pursuant to s. 214(3)(f)(i), where an amount has been made payable, but has not been paid or credited, by a trust to a non-resident beneficiary before the end of the trust’s taxation year, the amount is deemed to have been paid by the trust on the day that is 90 days after the end of that year.
CRA confirmed that, pursuant to the 15-day policy enunciated in Guide T4061, the tax must be remitted to the Receiver General by the 15th day of the month following the month in which the amount was deemed to be paid to the non-resident, i.e., by April 15 if the trust had a calendar year-end. This would comply with s. 215(1).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable, Q.6 under s. 214(3)(f).
CRA confirms that a U.S. revocable living trust is not a bare trust for s. 116 purposes
A non-resident who is a US citizen contributes Canadian real property to a U.S. grantor trust under which that individual is the sole capital and income beneficiary until the trust property is distributed to certain family members after the individual's death. This transaction is disregarded for US purposes so that there is no disposition for such purposes.
CRA indicated that this trust, being a U.S. revocable living trust, would not be considered by it to be a bare trust, given the successive beneficial interests.
Accordingly, on its contribution, there would be a deemed disposition of the property pursuant to s. 69(1)(b) at its fair market value. Furthermore, the non-resident would be required to follow the s. 116 requirements, and the proceeds of disposition would, for such purposes, be deemed under s. 116(5.1) to be equal to the fair market value of the contributed property.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable, Q.5 under s. 104(1).
CRA confirms post-Vefghi that capital dividends, or trust capital gains distributions, received by a corporate trust beneficiary, do not generate CDA additions until the trust year end
Regarding the situation where a private corporation (Benco) was the beneficiary of a trust holding shares of a private corporation (Opco), CRA confirmed that Vefghi did not change its positions reflecting the following propositions:
- Regarding capital dividends paid by Opco and distributed to Benco by the trust, their amount (to the extent designated under s. 104(20)) would be added to Benco's CDA at the end of the trust's particular taxation year, given that the condition for designation under s. 104(20) could not be satisfied before that time.
- Regarding recognition of the non-taxable portion of a capital gain realized by the trust and then distributed by it to Benco, the lesser of the amounts determined under clauses (A) and (B) in subparagraph (a)(i.1) of the CDA definition would be added to Benco's CDA at the end of the trust's particular taxation year, because, again, the condition for designation under s. 104(21) could not be satisfied before that time.
- In the situation, for example, where the trust was a graduated rate estate (GRE) with a February 28, 2026 year end, and Benco had a December 31, 2026 year end, if the GRE received or realized taxable dividends or capital gains in June 2025 and distributed those dividends or capital gains to Benco in December 2025 (with the expected designations under ss. 104(19) or (21) as at the trust year end), Benco would report those dividends or capital gains in its December 31, 2026 year, because that was the taxation year of Benco in which the particular taxation year of the trust ended.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable, Q.4 under s. 104(20), s. 104(21) and s. 104(19).
CRA publishes the 13 May 2026 IFA Roundtable
CRA has published the official version of the questions and answers from the 13 May 2026 IFA Roundtable.
For your convenience, the table below provides links to all seven questions and to our summaries of those questions, which were prepared several weeks ago.
Income Tax Severed Letters 10 June 2026
This morning's release of 10 severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA finds that s. 220(3.2) does not accommodate requesting a late rescission of a s. 45(2) election
In finding that s. 220(3.2) does not accommodate a taxpayer request to extend the time for rescinding an election made pursuant to s. 45(2), CRA noted:
- although s. 45(2)(c) provides the potential for a taxpayer to rescind a s. 45(2) election, this is accomplished either by claiming CCA in a particular taxation year (in which case the rescission is effective on the first day of that year), or upon reporting a deemed disposition of the property resulting from the change in use pursuant to the rescission;
- thus, given their different legal effects, it followed that “rescinding” an election under s. 45(2)(c) could not be equated with “revoking” an election pursuant to s. 220(3.2); and
- to boot, the decision to rescind an election under s. 45(2)(c) did not itself constitute an election listed in Reg. 600.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 5 January 2026 Internal T.I. 2025-1082101I7 F under s. 45(2)(c).
CRA finds that T3 reporting did not apply to a s. 94(3) trust with nominal assets
An individual resident in Canada settled a U.S.-resident trust with a $20 dollar bill (which was its only property) to be a beneficiary under the individual's will, so that the trust was deemed under s. 94(3) to be resident in Canada.
CRA confirmed that s. 150(1.1)(b) relieved such trust from a T3 filing obligation as it would have no tax payable, no taxable capital gains, and no disposition of taxable Canadian property. Furthermore, this result was not overridden by s. 150(1.2), given the exception in s. 150(1.2)(b) for a trust holding assets with a total fair market value not exceeding $50,000 throughout the year.
Accordingly, the trust would not be required to file a T3 return or Sched. 15 – and there also would be no required reporting under Reg. 204 because the trustee of the trust would not control or receive any income, gains, or profits.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable, Q.3 under s. 150(1.2)(b).
Neal H. Armstrong editor and contributor