Principal Issues: Document number 2008-027377 answered the question on whether a cost-plus plan qualifies as a PHSP where it provides coverage for a sole proprietor and household members, but no employees. We stated in this document that a cost-plus plan does not constitute insurance unless the plan provides coverage for at least one employee. The same individual is questioning why another taxpayer is advertising XXXXXXXXXX that CRA allows sole proprietors with no employees to use pay as you go PHSPs, when we previously advised him this was not allowed.
Position: (1) A sole proprietor’s cost-plus plan will not qualify if there are no employees. (2) CRA cannot comment on the other taxpayer.
Reasons: (1) Paragraphs 20.01(2)(b) and (d) provide that effectively the deduction is only available if equivalent coverage is offered to arm's length employees. (2) Subsection 241(1) prevents a CRA official from discussing another taxpayer.
Principal Issues: 1 - Whether amounts paid by a sole proprietor for his or her coverage under a cost-plus plan are deductible as a business expense. 2- Whether a corporate employer may have a cost-plus plan that qualifies as a PHSP.
Position: 1- Maybe. 2- Yes.
Reasons: 1- Yes if the cost-plus plan is a PHSP and all the other conditions under subsection 20.01(1) are met. However, a cost-plus plan does not qualify as a PHSP where it provides coverage for the sole-proprietor and household members but there are no employees as it does not meet the condition of insurance. Further, the deduction is limited under subsection 20.01(2). 2- Paragraph 6 of IT-339R2
Principal Issues: Whether severe and excessive hair growth as a result of a patient's Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome is precluded as a medical expense by virtue of subsection 1182(2.1).
Position: Question of fact, but in this case, since the procedures are a result of the medical condition of PCOS, they would appear to qualify as a medical expense if performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
Reasons: The hair removal procedures may qualify as an eligible medical expense since they appear to be necessary as a result of a medical condition and are therefore, not purely for cosmetic purposes.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 10/27/2019 - 13:29
travel between home office used for back office and 20% of client meetings and other office was personal
A part-time self-employed professional has a home office where she makes and confirms appointments with clients, writes consultation notes, keeps...
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 la contribuable peut déduire dans le calcul de son revenu de travailleur autonome ses frais de déplacement entre son domicile et un bureau où elle rencontre 80% de ses clients?
Position Adoptée: Question de faits, mais probablement que non.
Raisons: Paragraphe 24 du Bulletin d'interprétation IT-521.
Principal Issues: Whether parking fees can be included in transportation or travelling expenses under paragraphs 118.2(2)(g) and (h) of the Act.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: As announced at the 2010 CTF, it is our position that eligible expenses for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(h) include travel costs (parking, meals, hotel) incurred en route to and from the city where the treatment is received as well as during the period of treatment.
Principal Issues: Whether severe and excessive hair growth as a result of a patient's Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome is precluded as a medical expense by virtue of subsection 1182(2.1).
Position: Question of fact, but in this case, since the procedures are a result of the medical condition of PCOS, they would appear to qualify as a medical expense if performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
Reasons: The hair removal procedures may qualify as an eligible medical expense since they appear to be necessary as a result of a medical condition and are therefore, not purely for cosmetic purposes.
Principal Issues: (1) Whether the incremental cost of gluten-free food products for a child diagnosed with autism qualifies as a medical expense for purposes of the METC. (2) Whether the cost of sending an autistic child to a private school would qualify as a medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(e) of the Income tax Act.
Position: (1) No (2) No
Reasons: (1) An individual must have been certified in writing by a medical practitioner to be a person who, because of celiac disease, requires a gluten-free diet. (2) The school in question does not provide the specialized equipment, facilities or personnel for the care, or care and training, for an individual with an autistic disorder.
Principal Issues: (1) Whether a weight loss program qualifies as a medical expense. (2) Whether gym membership qualifies as a medical expense. (3) Whether exercise equipment qualifies as a medical expense
Position: (1) It is a question of fact, but in this case not likely. (2) No. (3) General information provided.
Reasons: (1) May qualify if provisions of 118.2(2)(a) are met. (2) Not allowable based on the provisions of the ITA (3) Insufficient information provided.
Principal Issues: Whether the amounts paid by the taxpayer for Neocate infant formula qualify as a medical expense for the purposes of calculating the medical expense tax credit.
Position: No, if it is lawfully available without a prescription then it would not generally qualify as a medical expense.
Reasons: Not allowable under 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act.
Principal Issues: Whether an amount paid for 24-hour respite care or 24-hour care for a disabled person provided in a home qualifies for the medical expense tax credit (METC).
Position: Yes if all the conditions of the particular provision are met as various provisions may apply. It is a question of fact if all the conditions are met and thus general comments provided.
56(1)(a)(i), 110(1)(f)(i), Article 18(3)(c) of Canada-Germany Tax Agreement
Principal Issues: Is any relief available from double taxation in respect of a German pension
Position: Yes
Reasons: A German social security pension received by a Canadian resident is taxable in Canada, to the extent that the pension would be taxable if the taxpayer was resident in Germany. The non-taxable portion of the German pension is determined by reference to the relevant CRA news release and is deductible under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i) in computing taxable income. A foreign tax credit is available under section 126 in respect of the German pension income received by the taxpayer and which has been subject to tax in Germany.
Principal Issues: What is the CRA's current position with respect to revising IT-85R2? If the CRA is revising, what is the timeline? Can the CRA confirm the treatment of a trust created after 2009 that meets the conditions outlined in IT-85R2, but does not meet all of the requirements of the ELHT legislation?
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 11/02/2019 - 01:56
CRA awaiting resolution of AES and Riopel cases
CRA noted that as the ARQ had sought leave to appeal the AES decision to the Supreme Court and the period for seeking leave in Riopel had not yet...
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: At the Round Table of Journées d'études fiscales of the CTF held on June 10, 2011, the CRA was asked to comment on the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Quebec) v. Services Environnementaux AES Inc. 2011 QCCA 394.
Position Adoptée: At this time, the CRA declined to comment.
Raisons: Revenue Quebec has sought leave to appeal the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in Services Environnementaux AES Inc. to the Supreme Court of Canada. Furthermore, the Quebec Court of Appeal has recently rendered another decision on the same question in Riopel v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2011 QCCA 954 (an appeal from the decision Archambault v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 QCCS 1576, hereinafter the " Archambault decision"), that confirms the Services Environnementaux AES Inc. decision. The time for appealing the Archambault decision has not yet expired.
Principal Issues: The CRA currently allows a joint venture to establish a fiscal period that may differ from the fiscal periods of the joint venture participants where the participants have different fiscal periods and there is a valid business reason that justifies a separate fiscal period for the joint venture. The 2011 Federal Budget proposed to limit the tax deferral opportunities for corporations (other than professional corporations) with significant interests in partnerships where the partnership fiscal period is different from the corporation's taxation year. Will the CRA continue to allow a joint venture to use its own fiscal period?
Position: No.
Reasons: Assuming the 2011 Federal Budget proposals are enacted, CRA's administrative position on joint ventures will no longer be consistent with tax policy. It would not be appropriate to allow deferral through a joint venture that is not available through a partnership. Taxpayers who enter into JV arrangements will no longer be eligible to compute income as if the joint venture had a separate fiscal period.
Principal Issues: 1) Whether Innovative Installation decision applies to a specific fact situation involving a trust.
Position: 2) No
Reasons: 3) Because of the particularity of group creditor life insurance policies, we are of the opinion that this decision is limited in its application to similar situations involving this type of insurance policy. Consequently, we do not believe that it would apply to the situation described.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
no rollover for bequested shares that had to be sold to satisfy estate debts
In a situation where, in order to pay debts of the deceased, the executors of an estate sold a portion of the shares which were bequeathed to the...
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: Dans le cas où le liquidateur d'une succession vend une partie des actions qui ont été léguées par testament à la conjointe du défunt, est-ce que les actions seront admissibles au roulement prévu au paragraphe 70(6)?
Position Adoptée: En l'espèce, non.
Raisons: Pour bénéficier du roulement prévu au paragraphe 70(6), le bien du défunt doit notamment avoir été dévolu irrévocablement en faveur du conjoint dans un délai de 36 mois suivant son décès.
withholding obligation extends to stock option benefits
19
Principales Questions: Whether the Minister is entitled to waive the withholding requirement in respect of a stock option benefit (non cash remuneration) where it is the only remuneration paid to an employee or where the remuneration paid is not sufficient to remit the required withholding?
Position Adoptée: No.
Raisons: New subsection 153(1.31) provides that the Minister does not have the discretion to waive a withholding requirement in respect of a stock option benefit solely because it is received as a non-cash remuneration.
Principales Questions: Dans une situation donnée, est-ce qu'un contribuable peut se prévaloir de la déduction prévue au paragraphe 110.7(1) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu?
Position Adoptée: Question de fait mais il semblerait que oui dans la présente situation
Raisons: Le particulier réside dans une région visée par le Règlement de l'impôt sur le revenu et ce tout au long d'une période d'au moins six mois consécutifs. Les absences de la zone visée par le paragraphe 7303.1(1) du Règlement sont de courte durée et la fréquence des absences au cours des six mois consécutifs n'est pas élevée.
