Income Tax Severed Letters - 2012-10-03

Technical Interpretation - External

CRA Tags:

Principal Issues: Whether our position expressed in document 2006-0217891Z0 related to the designation of eligible dividends paid by a public corporation would still apply to the designation of a portion of a dividend.

Position: Yes.

CRA Tags:

Principal Issues: Whether guard dog expenses are deductible?

Position: Question of fact.

Reasons: General comments provided.

CRA Tags:

Principal Issues: 1. Is a paper return, filed by a tax preparer, still considered a validly-filed return for the purposes of the taxpayer?
2. Would a subsection 162(7.3) penalty apply in various scenarios involving a tax preparer that prepares a return for consideration, but for some reason, the taxpayer decides to file that prepared return or a different return in paper format?
3. Could an unfiled return result in the imposition of penalties pursuant to 162(7.2)?

Position: 1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. No.

Reasons: 1. Taxpayers are required to file a return of income in prescribed form which includes electronic and paper filing. For the purposes of subsections 150(1) and 162(1), a return filed using either of these methods is acceptable.
2. Subsection 150.1(2.3) states that the tax preparer must file “any return of income prepared by the tax preparer” electronically. Therefore the tax preparer could be liable to the subsection 162(7.3) penalty where the return is submitted in paper format.
3. It is our opinion that a subsection 162(7.2) penalty only applies in respect of tax returns that are, in fact, filed. In other words, in order for a subsection 162(7.2) penalty to apply, a tax return would have to be submitted in a method other than by way of electronic filing. The taxpayer may still be subject to late filing penalties pursuant to subsection 162(1).

Principal Issues: The taxpayer has described various scenarios and is requesting our comments in what appears to be tax planning.

Position: No comments provided as we do not offer tax planning advice.

Reasons: IC 70-6R5

CRA Tags:

Principal Issues: Whether an employee is entitled to deduct motor vehicle expenses on a per kilometre basis?

Position: No.

Reasons: The CRA does not allow an employee to deduct motor vehicle expenses on a per kilometre basis.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

CRA Tags:

17 July 2012 Internal T.I. 2012-0454701I7 F - Arrière-arrière-grand-père -- attach -- Subparagraph (a)(iii)

farm use by great-great-grandparent did not qualify the property, cf. great-grandparent

Mr. A, who was the great-great-grandfather of the taxpayer, owned and used property in a farming business carried on in Canada. The farm property...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 252 - Subsection 252(2) - Paragraph 252(2)(a) parent in s. 110.6 context includes great-grandparent but not great-great-grandparent 185

17 July 2012 Internal T.I. 2012-0454701I7 F - Arrière-arrière-grand-père -- attach -- Paragraph 252(2)(a)

parent in s. 110.6 context includes great-grandparent but not great-great-grandparent

In finding that for purposes of s. 110.6(1) the “parent” of a taxpayer holding a now-inactive farm property included the great-grandfather of...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Words and Phrases:

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 110.6 - Subsection 110.6(1) - Share of the Capital Stock of a Family Farm or Fishing Corporation - Paragraph (a) - Subparagraph (a)(iii) farm use by great-great-grandparent did not qualify the property, cf. great-grandparent 229

Principal Issues: 1) Est-ce que la mention de "père" aux paragraphes 110.6(1) et 110.6(1.3) peut s'entendre d'un arrière-arrière-grand-père? 2) Est-ce que le contribuable se qualifie pour la déduction pour gains en capital relativement aux biens agricoles admissibles?
POSITION ADOPTÉE: 1) Non; 2) Non

Raisons: 1) Ceci irait à l'encontre de l'intention du législateur et la Loi se limite à un arrière-grand-père d'un contribuable; 2) Le contribuable ne rencontre pas les exigences prévues aux paragraphes 110.6(1) et 110.6(1.3).