Principal Issues: Why is a full copy of the will required in filing the final return for the deceased?
Position: T4011, guide for filing returns for deceased persons, requires a copy of the death certificate and a copy of the will or other document to establish that the person filing the return is the legal representative. The other document could be letters of administration or grant of probate. In addition, a copy of the will is required in order to obtain a clearance certificate.
Reasons: The enquirer was concerned about the privacy rights of the deceased. The Supreme Court of Canada has examined the Minister's broad discretionary powers to request documentation in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and determined that such broad powers are required to maintain the integrity of the tax system and noted that the production of documents is the least intrusive means by which the CRA can effectively monitor compliance with the Act.
Principal Issues: Whether travel expenses incurred by an Alberta teacher in complying with his or her legal and professional obligations under the Alberta School Act (1988) to attend the annual two-day teachers' convention are deductible from employment income.
Position: Where an Alberta teacher fits the facts and requirements as described in the Imray case, including a duly completed form T2200, reasonable travel expenses are deductible from employment income.
Reasons: The facts in this situation are very similar to the Imray case.
Principal Issues: Whether farm property was eligible for the capital gains deduction as "qualified farm property" under a number of scenarios and variations.
Position: General comments only. Referred taxpayer to Guide T4003 - Farming Income 2006.
Principal Issues: Whether an interest in a partnership must have been held for at least 24 months in order to qualify as an "interest in a family farm partnership" within the meaning of subsection 110.6(1).
Position: Although partnership must have been in existence for at least 24 months, there is no such requirement as regards the partnership interest.
Reasons: If a partnership has not been in existence for at least 24 months, it cannot meet the "throughout any 24 month period ending before" condition in paragraph (a) of the definition of "interest in a family farm partnership". There is no requirement in the definition that the interest be held for a given period of time.
s. 83(2) election can be made on a s. 84.1 deemed dividend
152
Principal Issues: Whether a private corporation could make a capital dividend election pursuant to 83(2) in regards to a deemed dividend under 84.1(1)(b)?
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 07/03/2021 - 22:12
recording of dividend payable and dividend receivable between sub and parent was insufficient to constitute the payment of a capital dividend, so that there was no CDA addition
Subco declared a dividend payable to its parent (Parentco) which, in turn, declared a corresponding dividend to its individual shareholder, with a...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
invalid payment of capital dividend (because no payment) was subject to Pt. III tax (given valid s. 83(2) election) for which no s. 184(3) election could be made as no payment
recording of dividend payable and dividend receivable between sub and parent was insufficient to constitute the payment of a capital dividend, so that there was no CDA addition
invalid payment of capital dividend (because no payment) was subject to Pt. III tax (given valid s. 83(2) election) for which no s. 184(3) election could be made as no payment
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 07/03/2021 - 22:20
invalid payment of capital dividend (because no payment) was subject to Pt. III tax (given valid s. 83(2) election) for which no s. 184(3) election could be made as no payment
Subco declared a dividend payable to its parent (Parentco) which, in turn, declared a corresponding dividend to its individual shareholder (Mr....
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
recording of dividend payable and dividend receivable between sub and parent was insufficient to constitute the payment of a capital dividend, so that there was no CDA addition
recording of dividend payable and dividend receivable between sub and parent was insufficient to constitute the payment of a capital dividend, so that there was no CDA addition
invalid payment of capital dividend (because no payment) was subject to Pt. III tax (given valid s. 83(2) election) for which no s. 184(3) election could be made as no payment
135
Principal Issues: Whether an accounting journal entry recording a dividend as an amount payable to a shareholder is sufficient to consider the dividend received by the shareholder
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 07/04/2021 - 00:15
s. 87(2)(z.1) causes subsidiary CDA balances to flow through to the parent
A subsidiary (Bco) that was wound-up under s. 88(1) into Aco had a positive balance in para. (c.2) of the capital dividend account definition due...
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 given fact situation, where a wholly-owned subsidiary is wound-up in its parent corporation and both parent and subsidiary have a CDA immediately before the winding-up, whether the parent must take into consideration the different amounts of its subsiduary's CDA in computing its CDA immediately after the wind-up.
