Principal Issues:
Whether the internal reorganization is subject to the exemption under paragraph 55(3)(a)?
Whether the PUC reduction is subject to the provisions of subsection 84(2)?
Position:
Yes
Yes
Reasons:
Meets the requirements of the legislation. See the SPI for a detailed analysis.
Principal Issues: For a group of employees, will a work location constitute a "special work site" under subsection 6(6) of the Act, thereby excluding from each employee's income the benefits they receive in respect of transportation and board and lodging?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Even though the period in which the employees may be at the work location is beyond the two-year period noted in paragraphs 5 and 6 in IT-91R4, the facts of this situation are such that the duties of employment are considered of a temporary nature.
Principal Issues: Application of the bump denial rules and stop loss rules to property ultimately distributed to the beneficiary of the deceased's estate. Application of subsection 164(6) to the capital loss on the redemption of certain shares owned by the estate of the deceased.
Principal Issues: Basis for considering expenditures incurred in respect of remediation work done on "leaky condominiums" as being on capital account rather than current repairs or maintenance.
Position: Remediation involves improvement to the property beyond its original condition.
Reasons: Guidelines provided in par. 4 of IT-128R. Consistent with previous positions.
Principal Issues:
1. Does a Canadian resident have to include stock option benefits realized on the exercising of his or her options in his or her income where the options were granted while they were non-residents?
2. Where the Canadian resident paid taxes in a previous year to the country where he or she resided at the time the stock options were granted, will there be a foreign tax credit allowed in respect of those previous taxes?
Position:
1. Yes.
2. No.
Reasons:
1. A resident has to include all of his or her income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Paragraph 7(1)(a) would apply.
2. A taxpayer can only claim a foreign tax credit for the income taxes paid to another government in respect of the income in that same year. There is no provision that would allow the taxpayer to claim a foreign tax credit in the current year for foreign taxes paid in a previous year.
Principal Issues: Whether child support payments would continue to be deductible by a taxpayer.
Position: No.
Reasons: Since child support would have ceased under the taxpayer's first child support agreement on XXXXXXXXXX , this agreement would have to be varied or a new agreement would have to be made in order to establish child support after this date. Accordingly, there would be a "commencement day."
Submitted by narmstrong on Mon, 01/01/2024 - 00:28
s. 47(1) does not apply to determine the loss on mark-to-market property shares for the purposes of B in s. 112(5.2)
In finding that s. 47(1) does not apply to determine the loss on shares that are mark-to-market property for the purposes of the description of B...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principales Questions:
Le paragraphe 47(1) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu (la Loi) s'applique-il afin de déterminer la perte sur des actions qui sont des biens évalués à la valeur du marché pour les fins de l'élément B de l'équation au paragraphe 112(5.2) de la Loi?
Submitted by narmstrong on Mon, 01/01/2024 - 01:22
disposition of land when sold by municipality for unpaid property taxes
CCRA indicated that there would be no disposition of the taxpayer’s lands on which there were unpaid municipal taxes until the municipality sold...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principales Questions:
Est-ce que le non-paiement des taxes municipales relativement à un terrain permet au propriétaire de reconnaître la perte en capital sur ce terrain?
Position Adoptée: On doit disposer d'un bien pour être en mesure de calculer le gain ou la perte qui découle de cette disposition. Commentaires généraux.
Principal Issues:
Can a RRIF carrier with two separate RRIFs with the same annuitant make a single minimum payment for the two RRIFs out of either one of the RRIFs?
Position: No.
Reasons:
Under the registration provisions, each RRIF is required to make its own minimum payment to the annuitant under the plan. Confirmed with Registered Plans Division.
s. 249.1(1) overrode the normal perspective that the partnership business was carried on by the partners both before and after a new partnership was formed
Submitted by narmstrong on Mon, 01/01/2024 - 03:57
s. 249.1(1) overrode the normal perspective that the partnership business was carried on by the partners both before and after a new partnership was formed
Three individuals wound up their partnership under s. 98(3) and transferred their undivided interests in the property to a new partnership among...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
s. 34.1(8) would apply if an old partnership is replaced by a new one, provided no tax avoidance motivation
219
Principales Questions:
M. A, M. B et M. C exploitent une entreprise en tant qu'associés de la société de personnes ABC qui a une fin d'exercice au 30 juin. Ils désirent s'associer avec M. D. Messieurs A, B et C vont se prévaloir des dispositions des paragraphes 98(3) et 97(2) de la Loi et ainsi transférer leur droit indivis dans les biens dans la nouvelle société de personnes ABCD. Messieurs A, B et C ont-ils cessé d'exploiter l'entreprise aux fins du paragraphe 34.1(8) de la Loi compte tenu que la société ABC a cessé d'exister ?
Position Adoptée:
Nous serions prêts à accepter que le paragraphe 34.1(1) de la Loi ne s'applique pas dans une telle situation, pourvu que la dissolution de ABC et la création de la nouvelle société de personnes ne soient pas motivées par des considérations fiscales.
Principal Issues: whether payments for driving therapy are "medical expenses"
Position: no
Reasons:
1. not paid to a medical practitioner or hospital
2. Although the payment is for training relating to a mental handicap, the payment is not for "care and training" so 118.2(2)(e) does not apply
3. 118.2(2)(l.9) does not apply because the taxpayer is not entitled to the disability tax credit
4. if conditions satisfied, tuition credit per 118.5 may be available
Principal Issues:
1. Whether a mortgage investment corporation can loan funds to a developer without losing its status as a mortgage investment corporation for the purposes of section 130.1 of the Act.130.1
2. Why mortgage investment corporations are treated differently under the Act than are banks and credit unions, with respect to impaired loans.
Position:
1. While not prohibited from investing in a developer, the terms and conditions of the specific investment must be taken into account in determining whether the requirements of subsection 130.1(6) are met.
2. Insufficient information to determine whether a mortgage investment corporation would be treated differently from a bank or credit union with respect to impaired loans. Basis in the legislation for taxpayer's perception is unclear. If the concern is one of tax policy, it should be directed to the Department of Finance.
Reasons:
1. Whether a particular investment is within the scope of permitted activities for a corporation to qualify as a mortgage investment corporation under subsection 130.1(6) is a question of fact.
where the terminated partnership carried on more than one business, s. 98(5) requires the sole proprietor to carry on all of those businesses
176
Principales Questions:
Est-ce que le paragraphe 98(5) de la Loi peut s'appliquer lorsqu'une société de personnes exploitait plusieurs entreprises distinctes et qu'une personne qui était un associé de cette société de personnes continue d'exploiter à titre de propriétaire unique une seule de ces entreprises?
Principal Issues:
Can a taxpayer combine his or her regular RRIF with his or her spousal or common-law partner RRIF?
Position: Yes.
Reasons:
The Act provides for the transfer of property between plans with the same annuitant but the combined plan becomes a spousal or common-law partner plan.
Principal Issues:
Can an educational assistance payment be made to a student before the end of the 13th consecutive week of being enrolled in a qualifying educational program at a post-secondary educational institution?
Position: Yes.
Reasons:
Educational assistance payments could be made in the first 13 weeks of enrollment but the aggregate amount that can be paid in that period is capped at $5,000 unless a greater amount is approved by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
unclear whether pharmaceuticals inventory could be transferred to a corporation owned by a pharmacist
331
Principales Questions:
Est-ce que l'achalandage de l'entreprise du particulier dans une situation hypothétique constitue la totalité des actifs d'une entreprise aux fins du sous-alinéa 110.6(14)f)(ii) de la Loi?
Principal Issues:
Tax consequences of a guarantee payment made under a segregated fund policy.
Position:
Question of fact whether policyholder will have received or become entitled to receive the guarantee amount at the time it arises under the terms of the contract. If the policyholder has received or has become entitled to receive the guarantee benefit at a particular time, paragraph 138.1(1)(j) will apply to deem the policyholder to have received proceeds of disposition. If the guarantee amount is paid to the policyholder in cash or kind by the insurer, the insurer would be entitled to deduct the amount of the payment in computing income under section 9 of the Act. Where the insurer satisfies the guarantee by transferring assets from its general funds to the segregated fund trust, paragraph 138.1(1)(d) of the Act will apply to deem the insurer to have acquired an interest in the segregated fund trust.
Reasons: The wording of paragraphs 138.1(1)(d) and 138.1(1)(j).
XXXXXXXXXX 2001-010223
Principal Issues:
Can early redemption charges incurred on the transfer of assets from one RRIF to another be paid by the annuitant under the plans?
Position:
No
Reasons:
An early redemption charge incurred by a RRIF in respect of the redemption of its investments is considered a cost related to the disposition of its property. Such costs are RRIF costs and they can not be paid by the annuitant.
Principal Issues: Whether interest is paid "indirectly" from one foreign affiliate to another foreign affiliate for the purposes of subparagraph 95(2)(a)(ii)(B) where a trust is interposed.
Position: No.
Reasons: The phrase "amounts that were paid ... indirectly ... to the particular affiliate" requires that a payment by the payor affiliate to some intermediary person be conditional on, or part of an arrangement for, an equal payment being made to the recipient affiliate. (Also see E9605735 and E9517445)
Principal Issues: Whether a benefit is received by employees as a result of the employer paying the cost of their spouses' travel expenses. There is an expectation from the employer that spouses accompany the particular employees to meetings and, while there, participate in work-related activities.
Position: Given such employment conditions, it is likely that there would be no taxable benefit to the employees as a result of the spouses accompanying them on trips. However, each trip must be considered individually, and the facts must show that the employer requested the employee's spouse to make a particular trip, and the main purpose of the request was so that the spouse could assist in attaining the business objectives of the trip.
Principal Issues:
1. Can the original value of a mortgage be used to calculate the income inclusion required where property is withdrawn from an RRSP or RRIF?
2. How is the fair market value of a mortgage held as an investment in an RRSP or RRIF determined?
Position:
1. No
2. Question of Fact
Reasons:
1. Where a mortgage is withdrawn from an RRSP, an amount equal to the FMV of the property at that time must be reported in the annuitant's income.
2. The CCRA does not provide valuation services or give rulings on the value of properties.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 01/06/2024 - 19:54
following Canderel, an upfront payment made under a multi-year supply contract is currently deductible
In recommending that a payment made by a corporation, on entering into a contract that gave it the right to make a supply over a period of years,...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principales Questions:
Est-ce qu'un contribuable peut déduire, dans l'année du paiement, un montant qu'il a versé à un client au début d'une entente qui s'étend sur plusieurs années?
Position Adoptée:
Dans la situation particulière, nous recommandons d'accepter la déductibilité du montant versé au cours de l'année du paiement.
Principal Issues: Whether CCRA is pursuing other cases in court similar to Wallsten; whether the maintaining of our position is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Wallsten
Position: We are not aware of any other cases presently before the Courts. Our position is not inconsistent with Campbell.
Reasons: Our response to Question 3 at the 2001 CTF Round Table merely reflects our opinion that, since we are maintaining our position despite Wallsten, there will probably be other cases proceeding to litigation. In Campbell, the court recognized that the doctor was operating a hospital providing a broad range of services, which was licensed under Ontario law, and not practicing medicine in contravention of provincial law. In Wallsten, the court accepted that Mr. Wallsten was operating outside the terms of his contract, and yet found for the taxpayer.
Principal Issues:
1. Can CCRA deny a Canadian film or video production tax credit claim if CAVCO has not revoked its certificate?
2. Should the Canadian film or video production tax credit be issued in a particular bankruptcy situation?
PositionS:
1. Yes, if the production is an excluded production.
2. Depends on the facts.
Reasons:
1. If it were an excluded production there would be no "qualified labour expenditure" on which to base its claim.
2. Reading of the applicable legislation.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 01/07/2024 - 00:15
disallowance of interest deduction to partnership on loans to corporate partners whose amount was included in their income under s. 15(2), was not contrary to s. 248(28)
Holding companies made interest-bearing advances to a partnership (the S.E.N.C.) CRA proposed to disallow the interest deduction to the S.E.N.C....
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principales Questions: Est-ce que le paragraphe 248(28) peut s'appliquer dans les circonstances où un montant d'intérêts qui n'est pas déductible en vertu de l'alinéa 20(1)c) de la Loi au niveau de la S.E.N.C. fait partie d'un montant assujetti au paragraphe 15(2) de la Loi ?
Principal Issues: Where amounts are subcontracted for SR&ED and these amounts include both labour and overhead, whether paragraph (b) of "cost of labour" in Reg. 5202 includes overhead.
Principal Issues:
Inquiry concerning a letter dated August 14, 1998 from the CCRA to DFO with respect to the taxability of the value of meals and quarters received by an employee who is working on a ship that is in its home port and the employee is subject to a standby requirement of being available to return to the ship within one hour or less.
Position:
In general terms, it is the CCRA's position that a ship that is in its home port would not constitute a remote work location, and therefore the value of the meals and quarters received by the employee while in port would be a taxable benefit included in income pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a). There are two exceptions to this general position - paragraph 4 of IT-254R2 and the CCRA letter to DFO.
Reasons:
The CCRA's letter to DFO was the result of the Tax Court of Canada case of Kevin Baker v The Queen. Employees must be in identical circumstances to Mr. Baker and governed by a collective agreement between the Treasury Board of Canada and the Merchant Service Guild for it to apply.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 01/07/2024 - 03:07
s. 6(11) income recognition when apparent that the leave would not commence within 6 years/ Reg. 6801(a)(vi) does not to extend 6-year period but deals with leaves over one year
A taxpayer joined a deferred salary leave plan pursuant to which the deferral period was from September 1, 1994 to September 1, 1997 and the leave...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
Principale Question:
Dans la situation où un contribuable ne prend pas le congé prévu en vertu d'un régime de congé à traitement différé, à quel moment les montants différés doivent-ils être inclus dans le calcul du revenu du contribuable?
Position Adoptée:
Si l'entente rencontrait les conditions à l'alinéa 6801a) du Règlement au moment où elle a été conclue, les montants différés seraient imposables dans l'année où l'on sait que les conditions de l'entente ne seront pas rencontrées.
RAISON POUR POSITION ADOPTÉE:
Texte de loi.
Principal Issues: Whether employee who makes a genuine error in her selection of benefits under a flex plan, can correct the error after the plan year has commenced
Position: Employee can correct error if it is a genuine error, and the employee has not merely changed her mind after the fact.
Reasons: If it is a genuine error, then the employee is not changing her benefit allocation from what she originally intended to choose. The CCRA has allowed the correction of genuine errors in other situations. See, for example, 2001-0100105.
Principal Issues:
1. Would the sale of certain television programs result in them being "excluded productions" within the meaning of draft subsection 1106(1) of the Regulations?
2. If so, can a reassessment be raised using a draft Regulation in order to deny the film tax credit?
3. Were certain television programs sold on the Closing Date, or not, based on the terms of the sales agreement?
PositionS:
1. Yes, based on the present draft wording.
2. It would appear to be a reasonable approach, but the issue of applying proposed legislation is ultimately an Audit/Assessing issue.
3. No.
Reasons:
1. The programs were sold before the expiry of the 25-year holding requirement in the definition of excluded production.
2. The taxpayer claimed and received the film tax credit based on the draft Regulations. It only appears reasonable to allow a reassessment if the requirements were not otherwise met.
3. Appears to be conditions precedent to be met before the sale takes place.
