Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
The terms of the partnership agreement that provided that a limited partner would be excused or excluded from or to pay a particular investment...
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:
Where the terms of a partnership agreement provide a limited partner with the right to be excused or excluded from a particular investment, will the existence of this right result in the units of the limited partnership not being identical in all respects for the purposes of paragraph 5000(7)(d) of the definition of "qualified limited partnership"?
Position:
A limited partnership will cease to be a "qualified limited partnership" at the time any term or clause in a partnership agreement is exercised which would cause the interests of the limited partners which were described by reference to units of the partnership that were in all respects to no longer be identical.
Principales Questions:
1. L'allocation de retraite peut-elle être payée en versements inégaux sur une période maximale de 10 ans?
2. Un employé peut-il renoncer à l'indemnité de départ et l'employeur peut-il verser un montant équivalent dans une convention de retraite?
Principal Issues: Whether travel from an employee's residence to a regular place of employment is personal when there are several regular places of employment.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:18
The purchase of a single-premium product liability policy by a manufacturer covering goods manufactured in the year would be subject to s....
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 subparagraph 18(9)(a)(iii) of the Act applies to a premium paid in year 1 for product liability insurance that provides lifetime coverage against liability for products manufactured and sold in year 1.
Position: Yes
Reasons: The product liability insurance premium paid in year 1 guarantees coverage against liability arising from goods manufactured in year 1 for the life of the good. Since the year 1 premium provides coverage in respect of a period after the end of year 1, subparagraph 18(9)(a)(iii) of the Act would apply.
Principal Issues:
Whether the purchase of an annuity in the year of retirement in the name of an employee in order to satisfy the obligations of the employer pursuant to an unregistered supplemental retirement plan (the "Plan") results in the employee being taxed on the value of the annuity contract in the year of receipt.
Position TAKEN: Yes
Reasons:
It is not an SDA nor a RCA since the employer did not acquire an interest in the annuity.
Principal Issues:
Will CCRA change its position concerning our interpretation of "only occasionally employed" for purposes of the application of subparagraph 212(1)(h)(vi) of the Act and apply the decision of the court in the Louis V. Nanne v. The Queen 2000 DTC 1653 (TCC) ("Nanne") case?
Position: Yes
Reasons:
Where the facts in a particular situation are similar to the facts in the Nanne case, we will apply the decision of the Nanne case on a case-by case basis.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:17
Payment of an employee's fees to obtain a permanent residence visa would constitute a taxable employment benefit given that such fees would not be...
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 payment of permanent residence authorization fees by employer would constitute a taxable employment benefit
Position: Yes
Reasons: Reimbursement of a personal expense is a taxable benefit. Unlike work permit and visa fees, permanent residence authorization fees is not a reasonable relocation expense.
Principal Issues: Computation of a corporation's capital dividend account ("CDA") in two given fact situations ("Situation A" and "Situation B").
Position: Situation A: No amount would be included in the corporation's CDA under paragraph (c) or (c.1) of the definition of CDA in subsection 89(1) of the Act at the end of the Corporation's 2002 taxation year. However, an amount would be included in the corporation's CDA under paragraph (c.2) of the definition of CDA at the end of the corporation's 2002 taxation year.
Situation B: No amount would be included in the corporation's CDA under paragraph (c.1) of the definition of CDA in subsection 89(1) of the Act at the end of the Corporation's 2001 taxation year. However, amounts would be included in the corporation's CDA under paragraphs (c) and (c.2) of the definition of CDA at the end of the corporation's 2001 taxation year.
when usufruct created by will, legatee of bare ownership acquired it at FMV of bare ownership
84
Principal Issues: 1) When does a taxpayer acquire bare owner rights ("droits de nue-propriété") with respect to a rental property situated in France (the usufruct being established under French law) for the purposes of the Act, where such rights have been acquired pursuant to a will. 2) Whether the cost of major repairs can be deducted in computing the income of the bare owner.
Position: 1) In the particular situation described, CCRA would generally consider that the legatee would acquire the property bequeathed at the time of the person's death. Pursuant to subsections 70(5) and 107(2) of the Act, the cost of such property to the legatee would correspond to its fair market value at the time of its acquisition by the legatee.
2) Under par. 1102(1)(c) of the Regulations, the bare owner would not be entitled to capital cost allowance ("CCA") at least until the extinction of the usufruct because the rental income generated by the rental property belongs to the usufructuary. However, par. 13(7)(b) may be applicable at the extinction of the usufruct to allow the bare owner (then the full owner of the rental property) to claim CCA, subject to the restrictions established in subsection 1100(11) of the Regulations.
Reasons: Wording of the Act and current positions.
Principal Issues: Can a full-time resident of a nursing home include, in his or her qualifying medical expenses, an amount paid for nursing care that is not provided by the nursing home?
Position: Yes
Reasons: Paragraph 118.2(2)(b) includes an amount paid for the full-time care in a nursing home of the patient. Full-time care in a nursing home may include nursing care not provided by the nursing home.
XXXXXXXXXX 2002-017664
Daryl Boychuk
January 16, 2003
Principal Issues:
Whether gifts by direct designation in an insurance policy or RRSP/RRIF provided for in subsections 118.1(5.1) and (5.3) are gifts "of capital received by way of bequest or inheritance" and thereby excluded from the calculation of the disbursement quota in subsection 149.1(1).
Position:
Such payments are not gifts for the purposes of subsection 149.1(1) and are, therefore, not included in the DQ.
Principal Issues: Can a full-time resident of a nursing home include, in his or her qualifying medical expenses, an amount paid for attendant care not provided by the nursing home?
Position: Yes
Reasons: Paragraph 118.2(2)(b) includes an amount paid for the full-time care in a nursing home of the patient. Full-time care in a nursing home may include attendant care that is not provided by the nursing home.
XXXXXXXXXX 2002-017480
Daryl Boychuk
January 15, 2002
Principal Issues:
In order to deduct an amount in respect of the premium on a life insurance policy provided as collateral for a loan must the loan be owing to the financial institution from whom the money was originally borrowed.
Principal Issues: Taxpayer paid child support to a former spouse in respect of a daughter from XXXXXXXXXX . The child began living with the taxpayer on XXXXXXXXXX and the obligation to pay child support ceased. Is the taxpayer entitled to claim the amount for an eligible dependent pursuant to paragraph 118(1)(b) of the Act?
Position: No.
Reasons: Subsection 118(5) provides that no amount may be claimed under subsection (1) where a support amount was required to be paid in respect of the child and a) the taxpayer and the former spouse were living separate and apart throughout the year or b) if a deduction was claimed under section 60 in respect of a support amount.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 08/13/2023 - 03:10
realization of s. 7(1.1) gain on shares’ disposition even though they had lost most of their value
An employee exercised stock options in 2001 after the CCPC employer became a public corporation and the shares had substantially appreciated –...
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: Comment détermine-t-on l'avantage imposable en vertu de l'alinéa 7(1)a) de la Loi lorsque l'action a perdu de la valeur après son acquisition ?
Position Adoptée: L'alinéa 7(1)a) de la Loi s'applique et le contribuable réalisera une perte en capital au moment de la disposition de l'action.
net rental income on property received by separated spouse to fund support was rental income, not a support amount
94
Principales Questions:
1. Est-ce que le gain en capital imposable résultant de la disposition d'un immeuble par Madame peut être imposé à part égale entre les conjoints qui vivent séparés pour cause d'échec du mariage au moment de la disposition?
2. Est-ce que les revenus nets de location font partie du revenu imposable de Madame?
Position Adoptée:
1. Dans la situation présentée, une moitié de l'immeuble avait été transférée à Madame par Monsieur. La moitié du gain en capital imposable serait attribuée à Monsieur à moins qu'un choix conjoint ait été signé par Monsieur et Madame pour que l'article 74.2 ne s'applique pas.
Principal Issues: 1) Whether the cost of a close caption device and related monthly costs qualify as medical expenses. 2) Whether the cost of a computer and speech recognition software for use by an individual with partial paralysis qualifies as a medical expense.
Position: 1) The cost of the closed caption device qualifies as a medical expense, provided that it is prescribed by a medical practitioner. In situations where a service provider cost is incurred to render the device operational, we would consider that cost to be a medical expense; 2) The cost of the computer and speech recognition software does not qualify as a medical expense.
Reasons: The provisions of section 118.2 of the Act.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
rental property qualified as depreciable property even though CCA deductions were never permitted
A taxpayer disposed of a rental property on which no CCA had ever been claimed because of the rental property restriction rule in Reg. 1100(11)...
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: In a situation in which a taxpayer disposes of a "rental property", and throughout the period of ownership was not entitled to deduct any CCA in computing income from the property pursuant to subsection 1100(11) of the Regulations, does the property meet the definition of "depreciable property" in subsection 13(21) of the Act and can a "terminal loss" with respect to the property be claimed under subsection 20(16) of the Act?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: A terminal loss with respect to a rental property should not be denied merely because subsection 1100(11) of the Regulations has restricted the taxpayer from deducting any CCA on the property.
Principal Issues: Determining the cost of labour for purpose of the M&P profits calculation, and the gross revenue and salaries and wages allocation, for a corporation that is a member of a partnership that has two fiscal periods ending in the same taxation year of the corporation.
Position: The amounts are computed for each fiscal period of the partnership that ends in or coincides with the taxation year of the corporation.
Principal Issues: In a situation where a Taxpayer late-filed T1 returns for XXXXXXXXXX , and, before the filing deadline for the XXXXXXXXXX T1 return (the relevant time), the Taxpayer was liable for late-filing penalties in respect of the T1 returns for XXXXXXXXXX but the penalties were not assessed, whether the penalty in respect of the XXXXXXXXXX T1 return, for repeated failure to file a T1 return under ss. 162(2) applies ?
Position: No.
Reasons: The condition under paragraph 162(2)(c) is not met because the penalties in respect of XXXXXXXXXX were not "payable", as they were not assessed at the relevant time.
