1. Will section 18.1 apply to restrict the deductibility of the production expenses incurred by the Production Partnership?
2. Will Creditco be an eligible production corporation for the purposes of section 125.5?
3. Will THC's investment in the Production Partnership represent a 96(2.2)(d) amount?
Position:
1. Not if before the end of the taxation year in which the production expenditures are made, income in respect of the film exceeding XXXXXXXXXX % of such production expenses is included in computing the Production Partnership's income for that year.
2. This involves a question of fact. We do not have sufficient information at this time to make that determination.
3. Not under the revised arrangement.
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.
Principal Issues: Tax treatment to employee of various amounts paid by an employer in respect of an employment related relocation.
Position: Payments in respect of a housing loss are taxable; one-half of payments in excess of $15,000 for eligible housing loss are taxable' payments in respect of cost, financing, use, or right to use a residence are taxable; most other expenses remain non taxable
Reasons: Policy in IT-470R; New subsections 6(19) to 6(23)
Principal Issues: Taxation of investment income earned by status Indians.
Position: Income not exempt unless it can be shown that it was generated on reserve.
Reasons: The investment income is the property in question and if it was not generated on reserve it is considered to be earned in the economic mainstream and is not tax exempt.
Principal Issues: How are payments to an employee by an insurance company under an annuity contract acquired by the employee's employer to be reported for purposes of the Act?
Position: Depends on the facts; could be an SDA or an RCA.
Reasons: In order to comment on the reporting requirements, we would have to review all of the facts to determine what the arrangement would be for purposes of the Act.
Principal Issues: Whether the time that a property was not owned by a taxpayer but was used in a farming business in which the taxpayer was actively engaged on a regular and continuous basis can be considered in determining whether the property was before the transfer used principally in the business of farming in which the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse or any of the taxpayer's children was actively engaged on a regular and continuous basis.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Subsection 73(3) does not include a requirement that property be owned by a taxpayer in those years where it is considered to be used principally in the business of farming in which the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse or any of the taxpayer's children was actively engaged on a regular and continuous basis.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 01/25/2026 - 02:01
loss from debt of insolvent corporation that arose to directors as a result of their paying its GST was denied
Two individuals (also equal shareholders) who, by virtue of being directors of a corporation that became insolvent, were required to pay GST and...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
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 actuehe du ministère.
Xxxxxxxxxx 990154
C. Tremblay
A l'attention de : XXXXXXXXXX
Le 10 septembre 1999
OBJET : Alinéa 4O(2)g) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu (la « Loi »)
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.
xxxxxxxxxx 980845
G. Middleton
(613) 957-2122
Attention: xxxxxxxxxx
Principal Issues:
Is a life insurance policy on the life of a shareholder of Opco an asset used in an active business for the purposes of the SBC definition where the policy is pledged as security for a bank loan the proceeds of which are used in the active business?
Position: No.
Reasons:
For the purposes of determining if a corporation is an SBC, subsection 11O.6(15)(f) provides that a policy on the life of a shareholder is to be valued at its cash surrender value. In our view this amount represents an investment, as opposed to a business, asset
Principal Issues: Whether subsection 17(1) (prior to 1999 amendments) applies to a loan owed by a non-resident person where at the time the loan was made the borrower was a resident of Canada
Position: Yes
Reasons: The Department's position is that subsection 17(1) contemplates an annual and continuous test for the purposes of calculating the interest deemed to be received by the lender. Also, the new subsection 17(1) (i.e., after the amendments in 1999) clearly applies to such a situation.
xxxxxxxxxx 982406
S. Leung
Attention: xxxxxxxxxx
September 3, 1999
Dear Sirs:
Re Subsection 17(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act")
Reasons: We have stated that U.A. AMT on Canadian source income is not creditable while generally AMT on U.S. source income resourced to Canada is creditable
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
A qualified subchapter S subsidiary is a resident of the U.S. for purposes of the Canada U.S. Convention, given that the position of the Agency on...
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 a qualified subchapter S subsidiary ("QSSS") is a resident of the U.S. for the purpose of paragraph 1 of Article IV of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention
Position: Yes
Reasons: Based on the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code regarding QSSS, there is no reason to say that it is not when our position on the residence status of an S corporation remains unchanged
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:11
resource group managementco did not have resource business
FA3 has six full time employees who provide geological and administrative services to FA1 and FA2, which are developing resource properties and...
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 business of foreign affiliate was an investment business.
Position: Question of fact.
Reasons: It would be necessary to have all the facts that would be available in an actual case before the principal purpose of the business could be determined.
capital cost of film determined in accordance with GAAP
159
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.
XXXXXXXXXX 5-991901
J. Desparois, M.Fisc.
A l'attention de XXXXXXXXXX
Le ler septembre 1999
Mesdames, Messieurs,
Objet: Coût en capital d'une production cinématographique ou magnétoscopique canadienne
the tax consequences of a transaction are to be determined as treating the agreement of an agent as that of issued pursuant to a subscription agreement signed by the broker as agent
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 01/25/2026 - 23:05
the tax consequences of a transaction are to be determined as treating the agreement of an agent as that of issued pursuant to a subscription agreement signed by the broker as agent
Before finding that a principal-business corporation could validly issue flow-through shares through a written agreement signed by it and an agent...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
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.
981369
xxxxxxxxxx G. Middleton
(613) 957-2122
May 7, 1999
Principal Issues: Would the payment by a corporation of the annual premiums for a life insurance policy on the life of a shareholder constitute a taxable benefit to the shareholder pursuant to subsection 15(1) where the corporation is the policyholder and also the beneficiary.
Position: Not a taxable benefit.
Reasons: It is a question of fact as to whether or not an individual has received a shareholder-related benefit pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Act. However, where a corporation is the policyholder and beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the life of a shareholder, and pays the annual premiums with respect to such policy, the premiums would not ordinarily constitute a taxable benefit to the shareholder under subsection 15(1) of the Act.
Principal Issues: Whether prizes received for scholastic achievement at the convocation of a university considered a prescribed prize as described in section 7700 of the Regulations and thereby excluded from income under paragraph 56(1)(n) of the Act.
Position: Based on limited information provided the prizes would be taxable under paragraph 56(1)(n) of the Act
Reasons: Not considered a prescribed prize as described in Regulation 7700 of the Act.
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.
September 17, 1999
Halifax Tax Services Office HEADQUARTERS
Audit Services C. Tremblay
957-2139
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.
September 17, 1999
Vancouver Island Tax Services HEADQUARTERS
Individual Client Services C. Tremblay
957-2139
Attention Nadine Smith
991632
Taxability of amounts received under the
B.C. Government Expanded
Homeowner's Reconstruction Loan Program
Principal Issues:
Whether or not an employer has "terminal credits" for purposes of the standby charge where the employer sells a leased automobile at the end of the lease to an employee for the "book value" which is the residual purchase price of the automobile pursuant to the lease, The employer's contract with the lessor on an automobile that is returned to the lessor, is that it is sold by the lessor and the difference between the selling price and the "book value" is returned to the employer.
Position:
We should accept that there is a terminal credit for purposes of the standby charge.
Reasons:
An employee who purchases an automobile from his employer at "book value" will have a taxable benefit equal to the excess of the automobile's fair market value over the "book value". If we take the position that the employer provided such a benefit to an employee, it would be difficult to argue that the employer had not obtained an equal value from the lessor at the end of the lease.
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.
Principales Questions: Est-ce qu 'on peut permettre à un employé de déduire les dépenses engagées pour se déplacer entre sa résidence et un chantier de coupe comme on permet qu'un remboursement ou une allocation à l'égard des frais engagés pour le transport entre la résidence et un chantier particulier ou un endroit éloigné soit non imposable ?
