Principal Issues: 1) Deductibility of interest expense in loss consolidation scenario. 2) Tax treatment of intercorporate dividends to be paid as part of loss consolidation transactions.
Position: 1) Interest is deductible 2) Subsection 55(2) does not apply to recharacterize dividends. Dividends are deductible in computing recipients' taxable incomes and are not subject to tax under Part IV, IV.1 or VI.1.
Reasons: Intercorporate loss consolidations acceptable where parties are affiliated. Technical requirements for interest deductibility and tax treatment of intercorporate dividends are met.
Principal Issues: (1) Can a landowner use the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption for dispositions of qualified farm property to offset the capital gain realized from the disposition of a pipeline easement? (2) Where the pipeline easement is for a term of 5 or 10 years, does a subsequent pipeline easement qualify as a disposition of qualified farm property?
Position: (1) Yes. The granting of an easement or right of way by a landowner is considered to be a disposition of a part of the property in respect of which it is granted. Provided that the whole property to which the easement or right of way pertains meets the definition of "qualified farm property" under subsection 110.6(1), the landowner may be entitled to utilize the capital gains deduction under subsection 110.6(2) in respect of the easement or right of way. (2) Where a subsequent easement or right of way is granted following the expiration of the 5 or 10-year term of an earlier easement or right of way, it is a question of fact whether a subsequent payment to extend, renew or renegotiate the terms of a pipeline easement contract or right of way is on account of income or capital, and whether a disposition has occurred that would be eligible for the capital gains deduction for qualified farm property.
Reasons: Review of the legislation, interpretation bulletins and previous technical interpretations.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 01/09/2021 - 22:32
test for identifying a business source
Before indicating that there were insufficient details regarding a question on expense deductibility to give a specific response, CRA gave an...
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 des dépenses engagées dans le cadre d'une entreprise de marketing de réseau sont déductibles?
Position Adoptée: Question de fait.
Raisons: Premièrement, il est nécessaire de déterminer si une source de revenu existe. Si une telle source existe (en l'espèce, une entreprise), il est nécessaire d'examiner les diverses dispositions de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu pour déterminer si les dépenses engagées sont proprement déductibles.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 12/06/2020 - 03:06
24-month test in para. (b) of QSBCS definition met where during part of 24-month period, mooted QSBCS were held through a general partnership
X and Y for at least 24 months held equal interests in a partnership ("SNC") that owned, during that 24-month period, all of the shares of ABC...
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: À la lumière des faits présentés, est-ce que les actions d'une société privée sous contrôle canadien qui exploite activement une entreprise se qualifient à titre d'actions admissibles de petite entreprise aux fins de l'exonération des gains en capital?
Position Adoptée: Question de fait. La deuxième condition, qui exige que les actions n'aient pas été la propriété de nul autre que le particulier (celui désirant se prévaloir de l'exonération des gains en capital) ou une personne ou société de personnes qui lui est liée, semble être respectée.
Raisons: Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu. Voir l'alinéa 110.6(14)(d) de la Loi.
s. 227.1 Income Tax Act s. 323 Excise Tax Act s. 179 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
Principal Issues: Whether interest is exigible on a director's liability assessment for a corporation's failure to remit where the corporation is bankrupt and interest does not accrue on the corporate liability.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: At bankruptcy, the stay of proceedings protects the bankrupt from the Crown assessing further interest on a liability. However, by section 179 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, a person who is jointly bound with a bankrupt does not obtain that protection. Therefore, the Crown can assess interest against a director after the bankruptcy of a corporation.
Principal Issues: What is the taxability of an employer's reimbursement of a gym membership to an employee who is working temporarily in another city?
Position: While the determination of whether certain amounts paid or reimbursed by an employer are primarily for the benefit of the employer or employee is a question of fact, in this case the amount would be taxable.
Reasons: These types of expenses appear to be primarily personal.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
The Canadian rate of withholding tax on a dividend paid by a Canadian corporation, that is fiscally transparent for U.S. purposes, to an S Corp of...
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: Rate of Part XIII withholding tax applicable to dividends paid by taxable Canadian corporation after 2009 to S-corporation where S-corporation holds greater than 10 percent of the dividend payer's voting shares and dividend payer is fiscally transparent for U.S. tax purposes.
Position: Even if the S-corporation is a qualifying person under Article XXIX-A of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (or is entitled to limited treaty benefits under Article XXIX-A(4)) and beneficially owns the dividends, the rate of withholding tax will be 25% of the amount of the dividend due to Article IV(7)(b). Furthermore, the U.S. resident shareholder(s) of the S-corporation would not be considered to derive the dividend income received by the S-corporation.
Reasons: The dividend payer is fiscally transparent for U.S income tax purposes. Consequently, the treatment of the dividend payment under U.S income tax laws is not the same as its treatment would be if the dividend payer were not treated as fiscally transparent under U.S. income tax laws. For U.S. income tax purposes, the shareholders of the S-corporation would not be considered to derive dividend income for U.S. income tax purposes and therefore would not satisfy the requirements of Article IV(6).
Principal Issues: Do hot tubs qualify for the HRTC?
Position: Depends on the type of hot tub.
Reasons: Eligible expenditures for the home renovation tax credit include only expenditures that relate to a renovation or an alteration of an eligible dwelling (including land) that is enduring in nature and integral to the dwelling. The 'plug in product' type is not enduring in nature or integral to the dwelling. The heavier variety that is hard wired directly to the electrical panel and permanently placed in position is considered enduring in nature and integral to the dwelling.
Principal Issues: Whether section 79, specifically, subsections 79(2) and (3) apply to the series of transaction and if so whether:
1) there is a capital gain on the deemed disposition,
2) there is a creation of a capital dividend account from the non-taxable portion of the gain, and
3) there is a non-capital loss carry forward balance from the accrued interest
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 12/06/2020 - 15:35
gain under s. 148(7) on drop down of policy (with CSV exceeding its ACB) by individual to his corp.
An individual is the owner of, and the insured under, a whole life insurance policy having an adjusted cost basis of $45,000, a cash surrender...
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: What are the tax consequences of the transfer of a life insurance policy by an individual to his wholly-owned corporation
Position: Amount included in his income under subsection 148(1). Not enough information available to comment on subsection 15(1) and other provisions of the ITA.
Survivorship and Presumption of Death Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 444 146(1), 146(4)(c), 146(8), 60(1) ITA
Principal Issues: The presumed date of the annuitant's death as declared by the Court Order precedes the date of the Court Order by 7 years and as a falls outside the tax free period prescribed in paragraph 146(4)(c) ITA.
Position: The date of the actual Court Order can be used as the date of death for the purposes of paragraph 146(4)(c) ITA.
Reasons: Reliance on the date of the retroactive presumption of the annuitant's death would give rise to an unintended tax consequence.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
A SOPARFI that has a material economic nexus to Luxembourg will be considered to be a resident of Luxembourg for purposes of the Canada-Luxembourg...
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 SOPARFI is a resident of Luxembourg for the purposes of the Canada-Luxembourg Tax Convention
Position: A SOPARFI that has a material economic nexus to Luxembourg will be considered to be a resident of Luxembourg for the purposes of the Canada-Luxembourg Tax Convention
Principales Questions: Dans une situation particulière donnée, est-ce que l'ARC considère que des actions ont été émises lorsqu'une société dépose des statuts de modification?
Position Adoptée: L'ARC considère pour les fins de la Loi qu'une action donnée du capital-actions d'une société a été émise lorsqu'elle l'a été selon le droit corporatif applicable.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether the preconditions in paragraphs 227.1(2)(a), (b), or (c) ITA and 323(2)(a), (b), (c) ETA operate disjunctively.
2. Whether a "liquidation" referred to in paragraphs 227.1(2)(b) ITA and 323(2)(b) ETA relates to proceedings under company law or insolvency law.
3. Whether a proof of claim has to be completed on the prescribed form.
Position: 1. The preconditions operate disjunctively.
2. "Liquidation" refers to proceedings under company law.
3. It is not necessary to complete a proof of claim on the prescribed form.
Reasons: 1. Green v. M.N.R., 90 D.T.C. 1898 (T.C.C.).
2. Paragraphs 227.1(2)(b) ITA and 323(2)(b) ETA.
3. Section 32 of the Interpretation Act.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
accretion in common shares issued to employee's TFSA on an estate freeze was an advantage
The sole shareholder (Mr. X) of Opco engages in a freeze transaction as a result of which he holds all the preferred shares and 95% of the common...
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 émission d'actions par une société donnée en faveur du CÉLI d'un employé-clé donne-t-elle lieu à un avantage au sens du paragraphe 207.01(1)?
Position Adoptée: Une telle émission d'actions pourrait donner lieu à un avantage selon les circonstances applicables à une situation donnée.
