Principales Questions: Est-ce que le nombre d'années entre la cessation d'un emploi et le décès d'un ancien employé pourrait empêcher une somme reçue de se qualifier à titre de prestation consécutive au décès ?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:12
A depreciable property of the taxpayer was rented to an associated company carrying on an active business, so that the CCA claims of the taxpayer...
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 recapture of CCA on rental property should be added to active and passive income on the same basis it had been claimed?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Since CCA was only deducted in calculating active business for some of the years of ownership, it would be reasonable to allocate the recapture of CCA in the same manner in which it was claimed.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 03/10/2019 - 16:44
exempt treatment of commissions received by employees on purchases of life insurance policies on their own account does not extend to purchases as investments or to annuities
An employee of an insurance policy receives commissions on his purchase of (i) two 10-year term life insurance policies for which (in the first...
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 les situations présentées, les commissions devront-elles être incluses dans le calcul du revenu de l’employé qui achète les polices d’assurance-vie (ou la rente viagère différée)?
Principal Issues: Whether expenses incurred to entertain employees and suppliers at a resort are deductible.
Position: Question of fact.
Reasons: It is a question of fact whether the resort is a "lodge" within the meaning of subparagraph 18(1)(l)(i) of the Act and if the taxpayer will use it within the meaning of the same subparagraph. Expenses for hotels, flights, food, beverages and entertainment that are not subject to paragraph 18(1)(l) of the Act are still subject to the provisions of paragraph 18(1)(a) and section 67.1 of the Act.
Submitted by narmstrong on Sun, 03/10/2019 - 17:34
reimbursement of regular cost of driver’s licence included even where employee required to drive
An employer reimburses the standard cost of a driver’s licence for employees, who, without a driver's licence, would be unable to meet 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: (1) Le remboursement par un employeur du coût d'un permis de conduire XXXXXXXXXX à XXXXXXXXXX représenterait-il un avantage imposable dans la situation donnée? (2) Dans la mesure où le remboursement représenterait un avantage imposable, les retenues d'impôt et d'assurance-emploi devraient-elles être effectuées?
Position Adoptée: Oui
Raisons: (1) Le permis de conduire bénéficie principalement à l’employé dans l’accomplissement de ses activités quotidiennes (2) La Loi
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:17
LLC itself claims benefits for US members
Where the members of a fiscally transparent LLC are entitled to Treaty benefits in accordance with Art. XXIX-A of the Canada-US Income Tax...
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 a single member limited liability company ("LLC") created pursuant to the laws of the United States (“U.S.”) which is treated as a disregarded entity for U.S. tax purposes, is entitled to the benefits of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention ("Treaty")?
2. If so, what documentation should be provided and in whose name (the LLC or the single owner)?
3. Are payments from an unlimited liability company created pursuant to the laws of Canada (“ULC”) to a resident of the U.S. eligible for a reduced Canadian withholding tax rate pursuant to the Treaty?
Position: 1. The LLC described above is entitled to the benefits of the Treaty in respect of any amount of its income profit or gain to the extent that such income, profit or gain is considered to have been derived by a person who is a resident of the United States pursuant to paragraph 6 or Article IV of the Treaty. 2. Form NR303 must be completed by the LLC 3. In certain circumstances, the payments may be eligible for Treaty benefits
Reasons: 1. A single member LLC created pursuant to the laws of the U.S. which is treated as a disregarded entity for U.S. tax purposes is not considered to be a resident of the U.S. under paragraph 1 of Article IV of the Treaty. However, if the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article IV of the Treaty are satisfied in respect of the amounts of any income profit or gains of the LLC, they will be considered to be derived by a resident of the U.S. and as a result the LLC will benefit from the provisions of the Treaty in respect of those amounts. 2. The LLC completes Form NR303 and includes a complete list of all of its members on Worksheet A. 3. See below.
Principal Issues: Can a recreational community sports organization receive sponsorships for equipment without jeopardizing its exemption under paragraph 149(1)(l)?
Position: Generally, yes.
Reasons: Most community sports organization sponsorships for equipment are directly connected to the objectives of the organization and represent only incidental income to the team.
Principales Questions: Quelles sont les conséquences fiscales du transfert d’un logement en contrepartie d’une somme de XXXXXXXXXX $ dans une situation donnée?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:17
After the taxpayer's return for 2006 was assessed on April 27, 2007 on a basis that showed a refund was owing to the taxpayer for that year, the...
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 Minister could withhold a refund for a lengthy period?
2. Whether the Minister should reassess the 2007 taxation year?
3. Whether the Minister should write off the debt, given that the taxpayer is bankrupt?
Position: 1. Yes; but not in the instant case.
2. Yes.
3. No.
Reasons: 1. The Minister could exercise discretion and retain a refund for a lengthy period if the delay could be reasonably justified, based on the circumstances of the case. The refund was initially retained because an assessment under s. 227.1 was pending. That assessment was abandoned. Nine months later, information about potential reassessments came to light. It was too late to retain the refund which should have been released when the section 227.1 assessment was abandoned.
2. The reassessment would enable the proving of a claim against the bankrupt estate, participation in the administration of the estate, opposing the taxpayer's application for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.
3. The bankruptcy of a taxpayer does not necessarily mean that the debt becomes uncollectible.
116(2), 146(8.8), 152(3), 159(2) & (3), 160.2(1), 207.1(1), 212(1)(l), and 248(1): def. of “legal representative”
Principal Issues: What recourse is available to collect the tax attributable to an RRSP when the estate of the deceased annuitant is insolvent and the beneficiary under the RRSP resides outside of Canada?
Position: No recourse is presently available.
Reasons: When the estate of the deceased annuitant is insolvent, recourse is available against the beneficiary pursuant to subsection 160.2(1). However, where the beneficiary resides outside of Canada, payment of the assessment under that provision cannot be enforced due to the bar under the revenue rule exception to comity. The bar does not apply in countries that have entered into a tax collection treaty with Canada. The trustee of the RRSP could, before paying monies over to a beneficiary, be required to obtain a clearance certificate under subsection 159(2) indicating that all taxes owing by the deceased annuitant have been paid. Such a position, however, would be untenable given the economic havoc and unreasonable delays it would create in the distribution of amounts out of RRSPs. Were there to be an administrative policy to restrict the application of subsection 159(2) only to those cases where the beneficiaries are non-residents, the administrative burden and delays would be greatly reduced.
