Principal Issues: 1. Whether solar panels installed are real or immovable properties? 2. Whether the amounts received under the FIT program are revenues for purposes of the tests in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition of "real estate investment trust"?
Position: 1. Yes. 2. Yes
Reasons: 1. definition of real or immovable property in 122.1(1); 2. Definition of revenue in case law, dictionaries, and the ITA.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:15
guarantee of secured grandchild LP borrowing
The taxpayer is a listed mutual fund trust which holds all of the non-exchangeable LP units in a subsidiary LP which, in turn, holds interests in...
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: Will MFT still meet the conditions of 132(6)(b) after having guaranteed the borrowings of a sub-partnership of a master limited partnership of which the MFT is the XXXXXXXXXX % limited partner?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Consistent with other rulings (2008-0273501R3, 2004-0097111R3), the level of integration of the MFT's investing activities in the sub-partnership, albeit indirectly, is sufficiently high for considering that the provision of the guarantee is not an undertaking by itself and also the MFT is not in the business of providing guarantees.
Principal Issues: Did subsection 90(1) of the Indian Act apply to the taxpayer's employment income, such that this income would be deemed to be situated on a reserve?
Position: No.
Reasons: The court has determined that generally subsection 90(1) does not apply to employment situations.
Principal Issues: 1. Are payments by foster parents to respite care providers taxable?
2. If so, are foster parents required to have a business number, remit source deductions and issue T4s?
s. 248(28)(a) applied to reduce capital gain on disposition of preferred shares on which a capital gain had been realized under s. 55(2)(b)
164
Principales Questions: 1. Where subsection 55(2) applies with respect to the increase of the stated capital of shares, would CRA take a position to eliminate the double taxation that could arise in such a case?
2. Where subsection 55(2) applies with respect to the stock dividend, would CRA take a position to eliminate the double taxation that could arise in such a case?
Position Adoptée: 1. In a situation where the conditions to apply paragraph 55(2)b) are met, subsection 55(2)(c) would not apply. In computing the amount added to the proceeds of disposition pursuant to subsection 55(2)(b), amounts included otherwise as the proceeds of disposition would be excluded from the proceeds included pursuant to subsection 55(2)(b). Therefore, no double taxation would arise in that case. However, in circumstances where subsection 55(2)(c) applies instead of paragraph 55(2)(b), the amount deemed not to be a dividend could be taxed as a capital gain twice. In such a case, we would apply 55(2)(c) in the year of the increase of the stated capital of the shares and when the shares would be sold, the capital gain would be reduced by the amount already included in the income pursuant to paragraph 55(2)(c).
2. CRA would take a position similar to the one taken in document 9830665.
Raisons: 1. Where paragraph 55(2)(b) applies, no administrative position is required. Where paragraph 55(2)(c) applies, a position is necessary to eliminate the inclusion as a capital gain of the same amount resulting from the fact that even if the amount is taxed as a capital gain pursuant to paragraph 55(2)(c), the ACB of the shares is not increased by that amount.
2. Previous position.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether variable B in the formula in par. 40(2)(b) can be equal to at least 1 in this situation. 2. Discussion of deemed disposition rules concerning a change in use of a principal residence located in Canada and what happens to such property when the taxpayer becomes a resident or a non-resident of Canada.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
Where self-employed US-resident individual provides services in Canada January 1-January 31 and October 1-December 31 in one year, and January...
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 the taxpayer's time spent providing services in Canada on two separate periods would both be counted in establishing whether there was a deemed permanent establishment ("PE") in Canada.
Position: Depends on the facts of the case
Reasons: One of the two periods is not within a 12 month-period, thus it will not be considered when applied to the 183-day test per Article V(9)(a) of the Canada-US Tax Convention.
Principal Issues: Whether the income distributed by Sub-trust 2 to Sub-trust 1 and then by Sub-trust 1 to the Trust form part of the Trust's revenues for the taxation year derived from "rent from real or immovable properties" for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (b)(i) and (c)(i) of the definition of "real estate investment trust" in subsection 122.1(1) of the Act.
Position: yes
Reasons: income was derived from the rental of real or immovable properties held by Sub-trust 2.
Principal Issues: Regarding the described exchangeable note: 1. Is there a subparagraph 20(1)(f)(ii) discount on the partial redemption in XXXXXXXXXX ? 2. Is there an interest deduction pursuant to subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i)?
Position: 1. Partially, yes. 2. Partially, yes
Reasons: 1. Most of the amount paid by the Taxpayer on the partial redemptions was paid on account of principal. The remainder was meant to compensate the Noteholder for interest that, but for the partial redemptions, would have been payable by the Taxpayer as interest on the Note. 2. The purpose test may not be met by some of the Taxpayer's uses of the proceeds from the Note.
