Principal Issues: Supplemental ruling regarding election to file an agreement in prescribed form (Form T2047) in accordance with paragraph 78(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act to have the accrued interest deemed paid by the Limited Partnership and deemed received by the Taxpayer for income tax purposes.
Position: Revised paragraph 22 of the Original Ruling.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether a postdoctoral fellowship is exempt from tax (scholarship exemption s.56(3)). 2. Whether the amendments announced in the 2010 federal budget indicated a change in tax policy concerning the taxation of postdoctoral fellowships.
Position: 1. Generally, no. 2. No, the amendments clarified the intent of the legislation and confirmed CRA's existing position.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether a postdoctoral fellowship is exempt from tax (scholarship exemption s.56(3)). 2. Whether a postdoctoral fellowship is considered employment income.
Position: 1. Generally, no. 2. Maybe, determined on a case-by-case basis.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether a postdoctoral fellowship is exempt from income tax (the scholarship exemption s.56(3)). 2. Whether the changes made to the scholarship exemption in the 2010 federal budget should be retroactive to 2006.
Position: 1. Generally no. 2. The amendments announced in the 2010 federal budget did indicate a change in tax policy or interpretation but were made to clarify the intent of the legislation.
Principal Issues: CRA's administrative policy on how the proposed amendments to subsection 99(1) will be applied.
Position: While awaiting Royal Assent, in situations where there is the possibility of double taxation, the CRA is prepared, in the context of a ruling request, to apply the law in a manner such that a taxpayer is not taxed twice on the same amount.
Reasons: Similar to position outlined in Technical News No. 9
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:11
S-Corp a qualified person if meets base erosion test
A U.S. resident citizen is the sole shareholder of a U.S. Subchapter S corporation (S-Corp), which is the sole shareholder of a U.S. LLC (which is...
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 dividends paid by a Canadian corporation (Canco) to a US limited liability company owned by an U.S. S-Corp owned by a US resident individual are entitled to the 5% withholding rate under Article X(a) of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (Treaty)
Position: The 5% rate is applicable where the S-Corp is, pursuant to Article X(2)(a), considered to own at least 10% of the shares of Canco, the dividends are considered to be derived by the S-Corp pursuant to Article IV(6), and the S-Corp is eligible for benefits under Article XXIX A of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (Treaty).
Reasons: Article IV(6), X and XXIX A of the Treaty.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
The exemption in s. 149(1)(t) is available to a non-resident insurer; and in applying ss. 149(4.1) and (4.2) the activities of the non-resident...
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: (1) Whether the exemption from Part I tax under paragraph 149(1)(t) of the Act applies to a non-resident insurer; (2) If so, in applying paragraph 149(1)(t), subsection 149(4.1) and subsection 149(4.2) of the Act to the Canadian branch of a non-resident insurer, whether the activities of the Canadian branch or the activities of the non-resident insurer as a whole should be considered.
Position: (1) Yes; (2) The gross premium income from the activities of the non-resident insurer as a whole should be considered.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether subsection 149(5) applies to the Corporation. 2. Whether the sale of a property will jeopardize the tax-exempt status of a 149(1)(l) entity. 3. Whether there is a distinction between the terms "pleasure" and "recreation" as those terms are used in paragraph 149(1)(l) and subsection 149(5). 4. What are the options available to the Corporation regarding the proceeds of the sale of the property? 5. What are the implications of those options?
Position: 1. Likely. 2. Generally, no. 3. Likely no. 4. See options discussed in letter. 5. See discussion in letter.
Principal Issues: Can a condominium corporation qualify for a 149(1)(l) tax exemption while intentionally earning excess rental income to fund future capital projects?
Position: Likely no.
Reasons: Paragraph 149(1)(l) requires that an organization be organized and operated exclusively with a purpose other than profit in order to be exempt from tax.
Principal Issues: In a situation where two parents share custody, does the same parent have to claim both the amount for a wholly dependent person and the child tax credit in respect of the child.
Position: Yes. If the child did not reside with both parents throughout the year, only the parent or the spouse or common-law partner who claims the wholly dependent amount for the child may claim the child tax credit for that child.
Reasons: Wording of the legislation and as per guidance found in General Income Tax Guide - 2009.
Principal Issues: Whether bed clothing, disposable gloves for caregivers and body ointments qualify for the METC as "other products" pursuant to paragraph 118.2(2)(i.1).
Position: Likely no.
Reasons: "Other products" refers to products designed for use by incontinent persons.
Principal Issues: 1. Is the amount paid to a PDF for non-teaching activities a scholarship, bursary or fellowship? 2. If yes, does a PDF qualify for the scholarship exemption?
Position: 1. Unlikely. 2. Unlikely.
Reasons: 1. In our view, PDFs usually receive either employment income or research grants. 2. We do not view PDFs to be students and thus they do not qualify for the ETC. Further we likely will not view the amount received as being "connected to the program".
payment of accommodation, travel and meal expenses for attending directors’ meeting out of the region likely not a benefit, but tickets to events likely taxable
Submitted by narmstrong on Mon, 05/25/2020 - 00:26
payment of accommodation, travel and meal expenses for attending directors’ meeting out of the region likely not a benefit, but tickets to events likely taxable
A not-for-profit organization described in s. 149(1)(l) (the “Organization”) operates in two different regions and maintains two...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
potential exclusion for part-time directors who receive travel allowance for travel to out-of-region board meetings
130
Principales Questions: Quel est le traitement fiscal applicable à divers montants versés et ou avantages accordés à des administrateurs d'une organisation à but non lucratif?
Principal Issues: Can property situated outside Canada be designated as a principal residence? Can an election under subsection 45(2) of the Act be made if depreciation has been taken on the property for US tax purposes?
Position: Property situated outside Canada can be designated as a principal residence provided it otherwise qualifies as a principal residence under section 54 of the Act. An election under subsection 45(2) of the Act can be made if CCA has not been claimed on the property for Canadian tax purposes.
Reasons: The definition of principal residence in section 54 of the Act does not limit the property to Canadian property, which is confirmed in IT-120R6. The subsection 45(2) election is available as long as CCA has not been claimed on the property for Canadian tax purposes. Depreciation taken for US tax purposes would have no impact for Canadian tax purposes.
Principal Issues: Can a prior year return be reassessed for the disability tax credit when the disability tax credit certificate was signed in the current year?
Position: There is no specific provision of the Act that would preclude an individual from requesting to have a prior year tax return reassessed for the DTC where the certificate was signed in one year certifying that the impairment started in an earlier year.
Reasons: Pursuant to subsection 152(4.2) CRA may reassess a tax return beyond the three year normal reassessment period to allow adjustments to prior year returns in any of the 10 calendar years before the year a request is made.
Principal Issues: Whether moving expenses are deductible, upon relocation from one province in Canada to another province in Canada, as a result of the taxpayer resuming a position with a previous employer.
Position: Question of fact. In and of itself, the fact that the taxpayer is relocating to resume duties with a former employer after a period of absence would not preclude the relocation from qualifying as an eligible relocation.
Reasons: Definition of eligible relocation in section 248(1).
Principal Issues: 1 - Meaning of "should normally be duly signed and dated" in IT-530R. 2 - What types of documents would qualify as a written agreement?
Position: Question of fact.
Reasons: While an agreement does not have to be signed to be binding, in accordance with IT-530, the correspondence must detail all terms and conditions showing intent to create a binding agreement and demonstrate acceptance by both parties.
Principal Issues: Could a partnership that has no publicly listed units be a SIFT partnership, if common shares issued by one of its investors is publicly traded? In other words, under what circumstances would the share be viewed as an "investment" in the partnership within the meaning defined in subsection 122.1(1)?
Position: With reference to hypothetical examples, it is discussed when a share would be viewed as a "security" of the partnership, as defined in subsection 122.1(1), or as a right which may "reasonably be considered to replicate the return on, or the value of" a security of the partnership.
