Principal Issues: 1. Whether the transfer by a mutual fund trust of shares and notes of a wholly owned corporation to another trust is a qualified disposition under 107.4.
Position: 1. Yes.
Reasons: Provided the value of the beneficial ownership of the mutual fund unit holders in the transferred shares and notes at the beginning of the period during which the assets are disposed of equals their value at the end of that period, the conditions of 107.4(2) are met. Accordingly, there is deemed to be no resulting change in beneficial ownership and all the other conditions of 107.4(1) are met.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:15
The leasing by a charitable organization of a housing complex to a society (with overlapping directors) who operate and manage the complex as a...
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 the fact that a charitable organization will be leasing a housing complex to another entity to sublet to seniors will result in the charitable organization being considered to be carrying on business for purposes of paragraph 149.1(2)(a).
Position: Question of fact. In this case, based on the terms of the lease and the facts as described, the charitable organization will not be carrying on business for purposes of paragraph 149.1(2)(a).
Reasons: Based on a review of the specific terms under the lease, the charity is not providing any services to the tenant that would indicate that it is earning income from other than an investment property. Further, the housing complex will be the only property of the charitable organization to be leased for investment purposes.
Principal Issues: Does the transfer of 1/7 of each property of a trust for seven children to each of 7 trusts result in a disposition within the meaning of 248(1) and if so, is such transfer a qualified disposition within the meaning of 107.4?
Position: Yes to both questions.
Reasons: The transfer will result in a change of beneficial ownership such that a disposition within the meaning of 248(1) will arise but 107.4(2) will deem there to be no change in beneficial ownership for the purpose of 107.4(1). As a result, the transfer will be subject to 107.4(3) provided that the other criteria listed in 107.4(1) are met.
s. 107.4(2)(a) applies where drop-down by MFT of corporate sub to sub trust for no consideration
245
Principal Issues: 1. Whether the transfer by a mutual fund trust of shares and notes of a wholly owned corporation to another trust is a qualified disposition under 107.4.
Position: 1. Yes.
Reasons: Provided the value of the beneficial ownership of the mutual fund unit holders in the transferred shares and notes at the beginning of the period during which the assets are disposed of equals their value at the end of that period, the conditions of 107.4(2) are met. Accordingly, there is deemed to be no resulting change in beneficial ownership and all the other conditions of 107.4(1) are met.
Principal Issues: Whether a per-diem/expense allowance paid by a union to its executive members is taxable.
Position: Executive members of a union who receive a general per-diem/expense allowance are employees of the union and in receipt of taxable amount
Reasons: Subsection 5(1) of the Act includes in income salary, wages and other remuneration received in respect of an office or employment. An office is defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act to include any position that entitles an individual to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration. It also includes positions where the incumbent is elected by popular vote or appointed in a representative capacity. Further, a person holding such an office is considered an officer and an employee. If an amount is not generally included in employment income under subsection 5(1) of the Act, other specific provisions could apply: paragraph 6(1)(c) director's or other fees, or paragraph 6(1)(b) allowances received in respect of personal, living, or other expenses. As a result, the general per-diem/expense allowance described by the correspondent is taxable.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 04/29/2023 - 02:49
s. 15(1) benefit (e.g., from corporation paying premiums under wage loss replacement plan for shareholder) cannot be reduced by the shareholder repaying the benefit
A corporation that pays premiums to a wage loss replacement plan for a shareholder/employee. CCRA indicated that this would give rise to a...
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: Une société verse les primes à l'égard d'un régime d'assurance-salaire pour un employé/actionnaire en sa qualité d'actionnaire.
1- Est-ce qu'on peut considérer un tel régime comme un "régime financé en totalité par les employés" tel que décrit au IT-428?
2- Quel serait le traitement fiscal d'un tel régime?
3- Est-ce qu'on peut réduire l'avantage à l'actionnaire s'il rembourse la valeur de l'avantage qui lui est conféré?
Position Adoptée:
1- Non.
2- Les contributions versées par la société représentent un avantage accordé à l'actionnaire en vertu du paragraphe 15(1). De plus, les prestations que l'actionnaire recevrait ne seraient pas imposables en vertu de 6(1)f) de la Loi.
3- On ne peut pas réduire l'effet du paragraphe 15(1) même si l'actionnaire rembourse la valeur de l'avantage à la société.
Principal Issues: Whether a taxpayer can transfer unrealized/realized capital losses to the taxpayer's spouse.
Position: Yes, in certain situations.
Reasons: Where the taxpayer's spouse still holds the substituted property at the end of 30 days following the taxpayer's disposition, the superficial loss rules will deny the taxpayer's capital loss and the denied loss will be added to the adjusted cost base of the spouse's capital property by virtue of paragraph 53(1)(f) of the Act. The attribution rules must not be applicable for the transfer of losses to be effective.
Principal Issues:
An individual takes out a loan that is secured by a mortgage on his principal residence. The loan proceeds are invested in mutual funds. The individual sells his principal residence and is required by the lender to repay the loan out of the proceeds of the sale of the home. The individual purchases another principal residence, using the funds from two new loans to fund the purchase. The first new loan is equal in amount to the loan repaid by the sale. The second new loan covers the balance of the purchase price of the new home. Both loans are secured by mortgage on the new home. The issue is whether the interest paid on the first new replacement loan is deductible under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act.
Principal Issues:
Is interest deductible on borrowed money used to acquire investments where the rate of return on the investments is lower that the interest rate on the borrowed money?
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 04/29/2023 - 23:56
s. 18(9)(a)(iii) likely applies where employer makes a payment to a trust which uses insurance to fund employee health services
An employer which made a commitment to its employees to provide benefits as drug reimbursement, paying for certain health services and reimbursing...
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:
Arrangement entre un employeur, une fiducie et un assureur. L'employeur désire offrir certains avantages sociaux à des employés pendant leur emploi et à leur retraite. L'employeur va contribuer un montant à une fiducie laquelle va assumer l'obligation de l'employeur d'offrir des prestations aux retraités.
Cet arrangement constitue-t-il un régime de prestations aux employés au sens du paragraphe 248(1) de la Loi?
L'employeur peut-il déduire la totalité de sa contribution dans l'année où il la fait à la fiducie ou la déduction est-elle restreinte par les dispositions du sous-alinéa 18(9)a)(iii) de la Loi?
Les prestations que recevraient les retraités de la fiducie seraient-elles imposables en vertu de l'article 6 de la Loi?
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 04/30/2023 - 01:40
non-refundable prepaid funeral amounts not held in trust were not eligible for the reserve
CCRA indicated that the portion (10% or less) of prepaid amounts received by a vendor of funeral services arrangement which it was not required to...
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 montant qu'un vendeur d'arrangements de services funéraires n'est pas tenu de verser en fidéicommis ou de rembourser au client en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements préalables de services funéraires et de sépulture du Québec est admissible à la provision prévue à l'alinéa 20(1)m) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu?
Principal Issues: What are the consequences of a beneficiary assuming a debt as a condition of receiving property from the trust?
Position: The amount of debt assumed will generally be an eligible offset used in calculating the beneficiary's proceeds of disposition of a part (or all) of the capital interest. The amount of the debt is an amount payable for property acquired for the purpose of 20(1)(c) and the assumption of debt will not taint the trust's status as a personal trust.
Reasons: The definition of eligible offset is found in 108(1). While it is a question of fact as to whether the interest payable by the beneficiary is deductible under 20(1)(c), the debt is assumed as a condition of acquiring the property. With respect to the personal trust issue, a beneficiary generally acquires no additional interest in the trust as a result of a capital distribution.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:12
A owns 80% of the shares of Corporation A and B owns all of the shares of Corporation B and 20% of the shares of Corporation A. A and B enter into...
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: Does the proposed removal of paragraph 13 from IT-419R mean that the CCRA has changed its position regarding the treatment of rights of first refusal and "shotgun" provisions in shareholder agreements for the purposes of subsection 251(5)(b)? If so, will Mr. B be considered to control Corporation A in the circumstances described above?
Position: CCRA has not changed its administrative position regarding rights of first refusal and "shotgun" arrangements in shareholder agreements for purposes of subsection 251(5)(b). Therefore, Mr. B will not be considered to control Corporation A in the circumstances described.
Reasons: There has been no change in CCRA's administrative position.
Principal Issues: Whether subsection 75(2) of the Act applies, with respect to a person who transferred property to a trust, where a trust indenture confers a power of appointment that gives the donee of the power, the right to appoint any person as a capital beneficiary of the trust?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: There is a possibility that the transferor be appointed as a capital beneficiary.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 04/30/2023 - 03:01
scenario including non-resident corporation did not comply with ITTN No. 22
A resident individual (Mr. X) is the sole shareholder of Holdco 1, which wholly-owns Holdco 2, which wholly-owns Opco 1 and Opco 2 (with Canadian...
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 scénario présenté s'insère dans le cadre visé par la politique administrative concernant la rétribution des gestionnaires-actionnaires énoncée dans la publication Nouvelles techniques No. 22 du 11 janvier 2002?
Whether the factual scenario submitted falls within the administrative position stated in the Income Tax Technical News No. 22 dated January 11, 2002, dealing with shareholder/manager remuneration?
Principal Issues: 1. Does the payment of trust expenses by the (spousal) beneficiary taint the trust's status as a testamentary trust?
2. If the terms of trust provide that the property can be distributed to the children of the deceased if the spouse doesn't pay the required expenses, will the trust still qualify as a spousal trust?
Position: 1. Normally, no. 2. No.
Reasons: 1. Where the spouse pays operating expenses only in lieu of rent, such payments will not be viewed as a contribution to a testamentary trust but a capital expenditure in respect of trust property would.
2. Where the terms of the trust provide for a potential distribution to anyone other than the spouse while the spouse is alive, the trust will not be a spousal trust.
FTC can be generated where recapture of depreciation, and denied capital loss, are realized on a US rental building
67
Principales Questions :
1. Conséquences fiscales de l'immigration lors de la détention d'une part indivise d'un bien amortissable.
2. Conséquences fiscales de l'immigration d'un associé d'une société de personnes lorsque celle-ci détient un bien amortissable.
1. Tax consequences on immigration of a taxpayer owner of an undivided interest in depreciable property.
2. Tax consequences on immigration of a member of a partnership when depreciable property is owned by the partnership.
Position Adoptée :
1. Il y a une présomption d'acquisition afférente aux règles de détermination du gain en capital imposable en vertu du paragraphe 48(3) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu (la " Loi "). À l'époque de l'immigration, il n'y avait pas de présomption d'acquisition pour les règles de déductions pour amortissement.
2. La présomption d'acquisition du paragraphe 48(3) de la Loi s'applique à l'égard de la participation de l'associé dans la société de personnes.
Principal Issues: Are annual dues paid to a trade union located outside of Canada deductible?
Position: Yes, provided the purposes of the trade union include the regulation of relations between employers and employees and all other requirements of subsections 8(1) and 8(5) of the Act have been met.
Reasons: For purposes of paragraph 8(1)(i)(iv) of the Act, a trade union is as defined by section 3 of the Canada Labour Code. The definition in the Canada Labour Code does not restrict a "trade union" to Canadian organizations.
allocation of expenses permitted to maximize dividend tax credits of MFT beneficiaries
187
Principales Questions: Est-ce qu'un fonds commun de placement peut, à sa discrétion, attribuer ses dépenses à l'une ou l'autre de ses sources de revenus?
Position Adoptée: Les dépenses encourues par un fonds commun de placement ne sont déductibles que si elles ont été encourues dans le but de gagner un revenu et, exception faite des circonstances énoncées au paragraphe 5 du Bulletin d'interprétation IT-524, ne peuvent être déduites qu'à l'encontre du revenu provenant de la source à laquelle elles se rapportent. Celles de ces dépenses qui se rapportent à plus d'une source de revenu doivent être partagées de façon raisonnable entre les différentes sources de revenu auxquelles elles se rapportent.
