Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 04/20/2019 - 00:57
oil separator Class 1 if sufficiently attached to garage
Respecting an oil separator acquired by a garage in order to meet government requirements, CRA stated:
To the extent that an oil separator is 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: 1. Les dépenses d'acquisition et d'installation d'un séparateur d'huile par un garage peuvent-elles être déduites à 100% à titre de dépenses de nature courante ou doivent-elles être amorties sur un certain nombre d'année? 2. Dans le cas où les dépenses doivent être amorties (dépenses de nature courante), dans quelle catégorie d'amortissement se retrouverait un séparateur d'huile?
Position Adoptée: 1. Dépenses de nature courante. 2. Dans la mesure où le séparateur d'huile fait partie intégrante d'un bâtiment (suffisamment rattaché au bâtiment) ou peut être considéré comme une partie constituante d'un bâtiment, le séparateur d'huile peut être inscrit à la catégorie 1. Si tel n'est pas le cas, le séparateur d'huile peut être inscrit à la catégorie 8.
Raisons: La LIR et le RIR, ainsi que la jurisprudence.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
Where the corporation is a member of a partnership which, in turn, is a member of a lower-tier partnership, s. 66.7(1)((j) applies on the basis...
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: On an acquisition of control of a corporation, does 66.7(10)(j) apply so that the corporation will be deemed to own a percentage share of a resource property that is owned by a partnership that, in turn, is owned by another partnership of which a corporation is a member?
Position: No.
Reasons: Paragraph 66.7(10)(j) applies to deem ownership only of property owned by that partnership of which the corporation is, itself, a member.
tainting effect of joint spousal or common-law partner trust on subsequent testamentary trust
211
Principales Questions: 1) Est-ce que la planification proposée peut s'effectuer conformément au paragraphe 73(1) de la Loi?
2) Est-ce que l'ARC peut confirmer sa position énoncée dans l'interprétation technique 2001-0099055?
a) Est-ce qu'une distribution provenant de la fiducie entre vifs proposée à la question 2 contaminera une future fiducie testamentaire?
3) Est-ce que la planification proposée peut s'effectuer conformément à l'article 107.4(3) de la Loi?
4) Est-ce que la fiducie peut faire une délégation de paiement à Holdco pour que Holdco paie directement aux bénéficiaires les dividendes?
Position Adoptée: 1) Non; 2) Oui; 2a) Oui; 3) Non; 4) Non
Raisons: 1) Le paragraphe 73(1) ne permettrait pas ceci; 2) Il serait possible de créer une fiducie mixte au profit de l'époux; 2a) Selon la définition de fiducie testamentaire, il ne pourrait y avoir eu de distribution d'une fiducie entre vifs; 3) Il ne s'agit pas d'une disposition admissible ; 4) Les dividendes versés par Holdco aux bénéficiaires de la fiducie aux termes d'une délégation de paiement devraient être inclus dans le revenu de la fiducie.
Principal Issues: Whether gastric sleeve surgery is considered to be cosmetic surgery?
Position: No.
Reasons: Based on information provided, it appears that it would not be considered to be cosmetic surgery and the cost of gastric sleeve surgery may qualify as a medical expense provided that the conditions in paragraph 118.2(2)(a) are met.
expense incurred if obligation has come into existence
129
Principales Questions: Que signifie l'expression "dépense engagée" aux fins du crédit d'impôt pour frais médicaux?
Position Adoptée: Question de fait. Selon la position de l'ARC, un contribuable engage une dépense lorsqu'il a l'obligation juridique de payer une somme d'argent.
Principal Issues: Whether a corporation is required to file an information return pursuant to subsection 238(2) of the Income Tax Regulations where the corporation pays amounts to subcontractors in respect of the operation of heavy equipment.
Position: Question of Fact
Reasons: It is a question of fact which depends on whether a corporation carries on construction activities as defined in Regulation 238(1) and whether the corporation's business income is primarily derived from construction activity.
Principal Issues: Is it possible that section 119 can apply to reduce Part XIII taxes withheld on a deemed dividend in respect of a shares of corporation that was wound up subsequent to emigrating from Canada to the U.S.?
ITA 150(1), 216; Regulations 400(2); TA, 2007, 27(1), 29(1), 111(2); CTA 2(2)
Principal Issues: Whether a non-resident corporate taxpayer is subject to tax in Ontario on income earned from leasing its Canadian property to a wholly-owned subsidiary with branch offices in Ontario?
Position: Non-resident taxpayer will likely not have to file a federal or Ontario tax return unless the taxpayer has a permanent establishment in Ontario.
Reasons: The Taxation Act, 2007 legislative requirements represent a significant change from the CTA position. The impact of this change means that a non-resident corporation without a permanent establishment in Ontario is no longer subject to Ontario corporate taxes even if it owns real estate, a timber resource property or a timber limit in Ontario from which it earns income.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 01:25
move following shift from part-time to full-time at same employer did not qualify
The correspondent held part-time jobs with three different employers for 10 years and then secured a full-time job with one of those employers,...
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 les frais de déménagement d'un contribuable sont déductibles dans le calcul de son revenu dans une situation particulière?
Position Adoptée: Non.
Raisons: Il doit y avoir un lien causal entre la réinstallation d'un contribuable et le fait qu'elle soit effectuée afin de lui permettre notamment d'occuper un emploi à un endroit au Canada.
Principal Issues: CICA 3855 provides for financial liabilities held for trading to be carried at fair value. Are fair value adjustments to the carrying value of these liabilities included in computing income for tax purposes?
Position: General comments.
Reasons: Our general view is that an adjustment to the value of a debt for accounting purposes, due to a fluctuation in interest rates, does not represent a gain or loss that is relevant for the computation of income for tax purposes.
9; 248(1) definition of "farming"; Class 43.1 or 43.2 of Schedule II.
Principal Issues: 1. Whether income received under the microFIT program should be reported as part of farming income or as separate business income. 2. Whether a farmer's rental of land to another individual for the purpose of installing and operating a solar PV installation would be included in farming income. 3. General comments on CCA requested.
Position: 1. and 2. Question of fact. 3. General comments provided.
Reasons: 1. and 2. Whether or not the income from non-farming activities could be regarded as farming income would generally depend on whether the other activities are incidental to the farming operations or are, in fact, a separate business.
Principal Issues: Is a deemed disposition upon emigration under paragraph 128.1(4)(b) considered to be a disposition that would result in the loss of grandfathered status relating to the single purpose corporation administrative position as outlined in ITTN-31R2?
Position: yes
Reasons: The application of paragraph 128.1(4)(b) would be considered a disposition of the shares of the SPC under the Act
ITA 114(a), 120, 115, 249(1); Reg 2602(5)(a); ss. 1(1), ss.3(1), s. 5 and ss.6(4) of the APITA; s.22 of the Quebec Taxation Act
Principal Issues: Where a taxpayer is a part year resident in Alberta during the calendar year and earns employment income in Quebec while a non-resident of Canada in the particular year, is the employment income attributable to Alberta?
Position: Yes
Reasons: Under subsection 6(4) the Alberta Personal Income Tax Act (the "APITA"), an individual who is a resident of Alberta for part of the year attributes income for the year, calculated under section 114 of the ITA, to Alberta.
Principal Issues: Whether settlement compensation received from a former employer is considered a retiring allowance.
Position: Generally, Yes.
Reasons: Where personal injury relates to the loss of employment, the related damage award would generally be considered a "retiring allowance". However, a reasonable amount for damages awarded separate from loss of an office or employment may not be taxable under the Act
Principal Issues: Whether the operation of subsection 222(4) would be sufficient to forego collecting an account?
Position: No.
Reasons: Although subsection 222(4) provides that the limitation period to collect an amount owing under the Act is ten years, there are exceptions to this general rule. The exceptions, found in subsection 222(5), (7), and (8), allow the period to be either restarted or extended.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 02:12
more particulars required re whether special needs tutor would qualify
The taxpayer’s a daughter is permanently eligible for the disability tax credit because of her mental functioning. If the parent hires a...
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: Le salaire d'une éducatrice spécialisée qui serait payé par un contribuable pour des services éducatifs donnés à son enfant, serait-il admissible à titre de frais médicaux? Une déclaration écrite de la part du médecin devrait-elle être fournie pour attester que cette enfant a besoin desdits services en raison d'une difficulté d'apprentissage ou d'une déficience mentale?
Principal Issues: Whether the unclaimed amounts included in income for accounting purposes should be included in the calculation of taxable income.
Position: No.
Reasons: The unclaimed amounts, such as dividend, interest, and the proceeds of disposition of property, included in the accounting income of a taxpayer remain a liability until such time as the amount is issued to the person beneficially entitled to it. Therefore, these unclaimed amounts should not be included in taxable income.
Principal Issues: 1.Assuming that a Liechtenstein Stiftung or a Liechtenstein Anstalt is classified as a corporation for Canadian Income Tax purposes, would the entities be considered a "Controlled Foreign Affiliate" of the taxpayer as defined in subsection 95(1) of the Act and will the foreign accrual property income ("FAPI") rules in subsection 91(1) apply?
2.In what situations will the taxpayer be considered to have de jure control of the Liechtenstein Stiftung or a Liechtenstein Anstalt?
Position: 1. Our position is that the Liechtenstein Anstalt may be viewed as a corporation for Canadian income tax purposes and would be considered a "Controlled Foreign Affiliate" of the taxpayer as defined in subsection 95(1) of the Act and that the foreign accrual property income ("FAPI") rules in subsection 91(1) would apply.
2. Dejure control rests in the ability to elect the Board of Directors
