Principal Issues: Whether: (1) foreign exchange gain realized when debt assumed by purchaser as part consideration for assets; (2) addition of purchaser as debtor to the existing agreement under State of XXXXXXXXXX law would result in a disposition of debt by the creditor for purposes of subparagraph 212(1)(vii); (3) proposed transactions caused interest previously deductible to no longer be deductible under paragraph 20(1)(c); (4) the general anti-avoidance provision applied?
Position: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) No; (4) No
Reasons: (1) the debt that was assumed represented part of proceeds of disposition for the assets sold and a foreign exchange gain crystallized vis-a-vis the transferor of the debt at that time; under State of XXXXXXXXXX law, no disposition occurred; (2) under the laws of the State of XXXXXXXXXX , there was no novation or disposition of the debt; (3) to extent interest was deductible for purposes of paragraph 20(1)(c), proposed transactions did not cause interest expense to no longer be deductible under that provision; (4) although the transactions are avoidance transactions, there is no misuse or abuse.
Principal Issues: Whether certain expenses incurred in connection with a Bulk Sample Program related to a potential XXXXXXXXXX operation qualify as Canadian exploration expense (CEE).
Whether pre-production revenue will reduce the CEE.
Position: Yes. Yes.
Reasons: Based on an opinion issued by Natural Resource Canada, the Bulk Sample Program will meet the purpose test.
Pursuant to paragraph (k.2) of the definition of CEE, the pre-production revenue will reduce CEE.
Principal Issues: Whether taxpayer's home is a "nursing home" under 118.2(2)(b), or an "other place" under 118.2(2)(e). Whether several attendants qualify as one full-time attendant under 118.2(2)(c).
Position: No. No. Yes.
Reasons: Nursing homes, schools and institutions are normally facilities of a public character that offer services to individuals who are not related to the facility owner/operator. An individual's private home is not such a facility. "One full-time attendant" may apply where there are several attendants provided only one attendant is present at any given time.
2007-025362
XXXXXXXXXX Amanda Riddell, LL.B
(613) 957-2128
February 5, 2008
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 05/09/2021 - 14:33
expense reimbursements, including GST, are included on T4A
A payer is required to report on the T4A form different expense reimbursements paid to a person under a services contract, and amounts paid as GST...
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: 1. Un payeur doit-il déclarer sur formulaire prescrit différents remboursements de dépenses versés à une personne selon un contrat de services?
2. Doit-on inclure sur le formulaire prescrit le montant versé à titre de TPS et TVQ?
Position Adoptée: 1. Oui. 2. Oui
Raisons: 1. Tout remboursement ayant trait à des dépenses lié à la prestation de service constitue une source de revenu provenant d'une entreprise ou d'un bien et doit être déclaré sur le formulaire prescrit visé au paragraphe 200(1) du Règlement de l'impôt sur le revenu.
2. Le montant de TPS, et conséquemment le montant de TVQ, doivent être inclus sur le formulaire prescrit visé au paragraphe 200(1) du Règlement de l'impôt sur le revenu.
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: If it were not for the election provided for in the Internal Revenue Code, the QSSS would be taxed in the United States as a regular corporation on its worldwide income.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:18
The taxation year of a foreign affiliate, for FAPI and surplus account computation purposes, should generally, be the same as the taxation year...
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 change to the fiscal period of a foreign affiliate will be recognized where the foreign affiliate continues into a new jurisdiction
Position: Only if a change in fiscal period is required by the laws in the new jurisdiction.
Reasons: The taxation year of a foreign affiliate is determined in accordance with the taxation year used for purposes of computing income in the country in which the foreign affiliate is resident.
Principal Issues: Whether cost of accommodation near hospital to be with newborn baby is an eligible medical expense. Whether spouse's cost of daily travel to hospital to visit baby and its mother is an eligible medical expense.
Position: Yes. No.
Reasons: Cost of accommodation eligible on the basis it was for the baby's attendant. Daily travel not eligible since 118.2(2)(h) is limited to one attendant and also because travel for the purpose of visiting is not travel to obtain medical services.
Principal Issues: Where, pursuant to 184(3), the excess portion of a capital dividend is deemed to be a separate taxable dividend that was payable at the time the original dividend was payable, can the separate taxable dividend be designated to be an eligible dividend pursuant to 89(14)?
Position: No
Reasons: The designation would necessarily be made after the time required by 89(14) and there is no provision for this designation to be late-filed.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:16
partnership employees not attributed to partner
Aco, a Canadian-controlled private corporation, holds rental apartment complexes, and an interest in a partnership (between it and two related...
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: Can the employees of a partnership be considered employees of an individual corporate partner for the purposes of meeting the exclusion in paragraph (a) of the definition of "specified investment business" found in subsection 125(7) of the Act?
Position: No.
Reasons: Consistent with the reasoning found in Lerric Investments Corp. [2001 DTC 5169], the statutory wording "the corporation employs" connotes a direct relationship between the corporation as employer and the employees. In the case of a partnership, the employees are considered employees of the partners collectively, but not of any of them individually.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 05/15/2021 - 01:40
unclear whether the FMV of options issued in consideration for purchases of property or services is the cost thereof
CRA noted that it was subject to debate whether the FMV of stock options issued by a corporation as consideration for the purchase of assets or as...
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: Quel devrait être le traitement fiscal appliqué à une société qui émet des options d'achat d'actions en contrepartie de l'acquisition de biens ou à titre de paiements incitatifs à de futurs clients ?
Position Adoptée: Aucune, pas suffisamment de fait.
Raisons: Discussion générale, nous aimerions analyser l'ensemble des faits entourant une transaction réelle avant de nous prononcer.
