Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
960519
XXXXXXXXXX Cal Brown
(613) 957-8980
Attention: XXXXXXXXXX
October 9, 1996
Dear Sirs:
Re: Subsections 34.2(4) and (5) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act")
On a proposed amalgamation XXXXXXXXXX, which will result in a deemed acquisition of control of one of the predecessor XXXXXXXXXX, do the loss restriction rules in XXXXXXXXXX of the Act prevent XXXXXXXXXX, which is formed on the amalgamation, from being able to access and deduct XXXXXXXXXX, and if not, would GAAR apply.
Position:
In this case subsection XXXXXXXXXX of the Act does not prevent XXXXXXXXXX deduction from surviving the amalgamation - XXXXXXXXXX. Further, GAAR was determined not to apply in this situation because the taxpayer's had valid business reasons for the amalgamation and it was not evident from the legislation XXXXXXXXXX that such a streaming was ever intended.
Can a cash basis reporter indicate a liability on its financial statements and subsequently convert the liability to retained earnings without any tax consequences.
Position:
We provided the opinion that the tp should reverse the initial entries
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
5-961313
XXXXXXXXXX (613) 957-8953
Attention: XXXXXXXXXX
November 19, 1996
Dear Sir\Madam:
Re: Medical Expenses Reimbursement within Testamentary Trust
whether the exercise of an option to port a mortgage to a new property creates a new loan when none of the terms of the mortgage are changed (other than the property used to secure the mortgage)
Followup to previous file. Writer wants further clarification of interpretation of certain legislative provisions regarding the tax treatment of certain members of the clergy and religious orders.
Position:
No change in position, more detailed explanation of applicable provisions which include 5(1), 6(1), 110(2).
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:18
"Where an amount of the purchase price is allocated for unharvested trees in the field, these trees would be considered purchased inventory ..."
Principal Issues:
Mandatory Inventory Adjustment
Position:
Where an amount of a purchase price has been allocated to unharvested trees, these trees would be considered purchased inventory for purposes of paragraph 28(1)(c)
Prior opinion given that this taxpayer would be grandfathered from the application of our new position re: acb of partnership interest calculation, but only for 1995, pending the outcome of our study of the matter.
Position:
Grandfathered only for 1995. The new position applies for 1996 and subsequent years.
whether a unit in a money market fund can be considered cash for the purpose of 108(2)(b), 204.4(2)(a) and the def'n of pooled fund trust in ss 5000(7) of the Regs
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:16
As the cost amount of property is relevant for Part XI purposes, a pension fund that is exempt from tax under s. 149(1)(o) nonetheless is required...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principal Issues:
Is it necessary for a non-taxable entity (a pension fund trust) to track cost base adjustments in view of the fact that they are non-taxable?
Position:
Yes. For an entity such as a pension fund trust, cost of properties is also relevant in determining whether foreign property limits are met and whether Part XI tax is payable.
Several questions as to what amount of land or commercial activity will be permitted in a "house" or a "housing project" for the purpose of determining whether a debt secured by a mortgage on such property would qualify under the MIC rules in subparagraph 130.1(6)(f)(i) of the Act.
Position:
General comments only since it is a question of fact and law.
whether military employee can deduct as travel costs for relocation the difference between DND per kilometre amount (9.5 cents per km.) and the amount paid for federal civil servants
Position:
no but can deduct any actual travel costs over and above the amount of the allowance/reimbursement
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:17
With respect to a testamentary trust with four trustees who are siblings and who are beneficiaries along with their spouses and children, RC found...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principal Issues:
Whether exercise of discretion by 4 trustees to direct income to beneficiary spouse of 1 trustee invokes either 56(2) or 74.1(1) where trustees are also beneficiaries.
Option sold giving the right to acquire interest-bearing bonds with interest rate higher than the market rate. Option is on capital account.
1.Does section 49 apply only and not paragraph 12(1)(x) and subsection 9(1)?
2.Is paragraph 20(1)(c) applicable?
Position:
1.Section 49 applies to a bona fide option. In a factual situation, paragraph 12(1)(x) could apply depending on the particular facts and circumstances.
2.20(1)(c) could not apply to the portion of the interest that may be considered as a compensation for the premium paid on the acquisition of the option.
Whether a limited partnership formed with one general and one nominee limited partner pending a public offering of the limited partnership units can qualify as a small business investment limited partnership as defined in subsection 5102(1).
Whether section 19 or 19.1 of the Act applies to deny a deduction for expenses to be incurred by a Canadian taxpayer to advertise on a foreign owned web site.
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
961103
XXXXXXXXXX Cal Brown
(613) 957-8980
Attention: XXXXXXXXXX
October 23, 1996
Dear Sirs:
Re: Section 34.2 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act")
1)Would a granddaughter-in-law be considered a child for purposes of subsection 70(9) and 70(9.2)
2)Would she still be considered a child if grandson predeceases taxpayer
Position:
1)Yes
2)No as she would no longer be a spouse of grandson and would no longer meet the extended definition of child pursuant to 252(4)
Accrual rules on debt obligations held by the estate of a deceased taxpayer. Can the estate make an additional accrual to the end of its taxation year (ie: essentially to what would be the anniversary date ending in the taxation year and then a further accrual to the end of the taxation year).
Position:
This particular situation deals with debt obligations that may not be investment contracts. However, accrual under 12(4) is only applicable where there is an anniversary date in that year. Therefore no accrual as suggested by taxpayer.
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
960435
XXXXXXXXXX Cal Brown
(613) 957-8980
Attention: XXXXXXXXXX
October 9, 1996
Dear Sirs:
Re: Subsection 34.2(3) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act")
Transfer of rights under an "prescribed annuity contract" before death of the original holder to a spouse. Is there a disposition and how does taxation of annuity occur? Can attribution rules apply?
Position:
Such a transfer would result in there being a disposition of the annuity contract. Attribution rules could apply. However, the particular annuity would not have qualified as a PAC in the first place due to clause 304(1)(c)(iv)(D) of the Regulations.
1)Confirming new position that administration fees paid inside RRSP or RRIF trust do not constitute benefit or amount received to annuitant;
2)Confirming old position that investment management fees paid by annuitant are considered payment of a premium to RRSP but not a gift to RRSP for section 146 and Part X.1 purposes; and that payment of such RRIF expenses by annuitant is forbidden by 146.3(2)(f) and would cause income inclusion under 146.3(11);
3)Confirming Finance's position that both types of fees may be paid out of plan funds.
1)Confirming position that administration fees paid inside RRIF trust do not constitute benefit or amount received to annuitant;
2)Confirming position that investment management fees paid by annuitant is forbidden by 146.3(2)(f) and would cause income inclusion under 146.3(11); and that payment of fees by plan does not constitute income or any part of "minimum amount" to annuitant.
1)Confirming new position that administration fees paid inside RRSP or RRIF trust do not constitute benefit or amount received to annuitant;
2)Confirming old position that investment management fees paid by annuitant are considered payment of a premium to RRSP but not a gift to RRSP for section 146 and Part X.1 purposes; and that payment of such RRIF expenses by annuitant is forbidden by 146.3(2)(f) and would cause income inclusion under 146.3(11).
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
962404
XXXXXXXXXX B. Kerr
Attention: XXXXXXXXXX
August 29, 1996
Dear Sirs:
Re: Relocation and Restoration of Rural Heritage Property
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
November 12, 1996
HEADQUARTERS HEADQUARTERS
Assessment of Returns M. Eisner
Directorate
Michel Trehan (613) 957-2138
Validation Section
962735
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
October 9, 1996
Calgary Tax Services Office Partnerships Section
Appeals Division Cal Brown
(613) 957-8980
Attention: Daljeet Dev
962699
Canada Pension Plan Contributions - Retired Partner
1.Do all Indian bands qualify as municipalities for purposes of paragraph 149(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act?
2.Can a corporation owned by an Indian band qualify under paragraph 149(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act regardless of the type of business it carries on?
3.Is the meaning of "municipality" as used for GST purposes applicable to the Income Tax Act?
4.Can a corporation that is owned by an Indian band qualify under 149(1)(d) even though it conducts its business off reserve, provided that it maintains its head office on reserve?
5.In light of Otineka, does a corporation have to be 100% owned by an Indian band in order to qualify under paragraph 149(1)(d)?
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
