Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:11
A mine to be developed close to an existing mine (the C Mine) is ruled to be a new mine within a mineral resource in Canada for purposes of s. (g)...
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 a mine which may be established would be a "new mine" for purposes of paragraph (g) to the definition of CEE.
Position: A mine established in accordance with the proposed transactions described herein would be a "new mine" for purposes of paragraph (g) to the definition of CEE.
Reasons: Based upon the facts, proposed transactions and a written opinion from Natural Resources Canada.
Principal Issues: 1. Will a particular arrangement qualify as an "eligible funeral arrangement" as defined in subsection 148.1(1)? 2. Will an amount that has accrued, is credited or is added to the eligible funeral arrangement be included in the income of the funeral home or of the taxpayer pursuant to section 12.2? 3. Will an amount be considered to be distributed from the original eligible funeral arrangement and included in taxpayer's income under subsection 148.1(3)? 4. Will an amount be required to be withheld under section 153? 5. If enacted in its current form, would the proposed subsection 148.1(5) apply such that proposed subsection 148.1(4) would not apply?
Position: 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. No, 4. No., 5. Yes.
Reasons: 1. The proposed arrangement meets the definition of an "eligible funeral arrangement" in subsection 148.1(1), 2. Preamble of subsection 148.1(2) contains "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act", therefore section 12.2 would not override paragraph 148.1(2)(a), 3. Taxpayer never receives the funds, transfer is between two eligible funeral arrangements, 4. There is no withholding requirement in subsection 153(1), 5. All conditions in proposed subsection 148.1(5) are met.
Principal Issues: Whether Article IV(7)(b) applies to deemed payment of dividend under s. 84(1) by Canadian-resident unlimited liability company that is fiscally transparent for United States tax purposes to its United States-resident shareholder.
Position: No.
Reasons: United States tax treatment of the dividend income deemed to arise in Canada under s. 84(1) is the same whether or not the unlimited liability company is fiscally transparent for United States tax purposes.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
CRA noted that holding shares in a for-profit subsidiary will not necessarily disqualify an organization from the benefit of 149(1)(l).
...if an...
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. Will an organization exempt from tax under paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Act jeopardize its exemption if it incorporates and holds shares in a for-profit taxable subsidiary?
2. Is the answer the same if the non-profit organization uses a trust instead of a corporation?
Position: 1. An organization may continue to be exempt from tax - it is a question of fact.
2. Cannot answer in the context of a general interpretation.
Reasons: 1. Whether an organization is organized and operated for non-profit purposes is a question of fact in each situation.
2. This question is better handled in an advance income tax ruling request.
Principal Issues: Is AIM considered a “recognized stock exchange” as defined under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act?
Position: yes
Reasons: AIM is a stock exchange located in the UK which is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and that has a tax treaty with Canada as required by definition.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:17
A wholly-owned subsidiary (Subco) of a public corporation (Pubco) that has never elected to be a public corporation itself, will not itself be a...
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 definition in subsection 89(1) for a "public corporation" includes "corporations controlled by public corporations"?
Position: No
Reasons: A corporation will not be a "public corporation", within the meaning of the definition of that term in 89(1), merely because it is controlled by a corporation that, itself, qualifies as a "public corporation".
Principal Issues: A Canadian corporation makes payments to an unrelated U.S. corporation for the provision of information. What are the Canadian tax implications to the payor?
Position: Withholding applies depending on the nature of the payments.
Reasons: If the payments are for services to a non-resident, Regulation 105 applies. If the payments are for the provision of commercial information or customer lists, subparagraphs 212(1)(d)(ii) applies. However, under the Treaty, the exemption under Article XII(3)(c) will reduce the withholding tax rate to nil.
Principal Issues: 1. Is an individual (“Taxpayer”) who works for a Canadian university (“University”) subject to withholding on the work performed by the Taxpayer for XXXXXXXXXX in respect of a contract between XXXXXXXXXX and the University?
2. Are the amounts earned by the Taxpayer in respect of work performed for XXXXXXXXXX exempt from taxation for Canadian tax purposes?
3. If XXXXXXXXXX contracted the Taxpayer directly, would the amounts earned by the Taxpayer in respect of work performed for XXXXXXXXXX be exempt from taxation for Canadian tax purposes?
Position: Q1: Yes.
Q2: No.
Q3: Question of fact.
Reasons: 1. All amounts received by an employee from the employer that are not income from business of the employee are included in "salary or wages" and therefore subject to withholding under 153(1)(a). 2. Income earned by employee is not income from employment with XXXXXXXXXX therefore it is not eligible for a deduction under 110(1)(f)(iii). 3. Question of fact.
Principal Issues: Is Form T1134B required to be filed in respect of a foreign affiliate if the foreign affiliate does not have a tax year ending in the reporting taxpayer's tax year?
Position: Yes.
Reasons: To ensure accurate record of the history of the foreign affiliate and transparency of offshore structures, filing is required in this circumstance.
Principal Issues: Whether Part XIII Tax is payable on fees paid to a non-resident vendor for the use of on-line trading program.
Position: A payment to a non-resident vendor for right to use digital property does not generally constitute a royalty payment described in subparagraph 212(1)(d)(i) of Part XIII of the Act.
Reasons: The CRA views that a payment to access digital property (subject to certain exceptional cases) generally gives rise to business proceeds.
Principal Issues: Whether an individual is a non-resident of Canada and required to file a tax return to report pension income.
Position: Where an individual living abroad has no significant ties to Canada, the non-resident tax withheld is generally the final tax obligation to Canada on certain pension income.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
The lease or sale of lockers to members will generally not jeopardize an organization's eligibility under s. 149(1)(l), provided that doing so is...
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 condominium corporation would lose its 149(1)(l) status if it sells locker space to its members. 2. Whether a condominium corporation would lose its 149(1)(l) status if it leases locker space to its members.
Position: 1. Likely not. 2. Likely not if incidental.
Reasons: Fact specific. Depends on provincial law.
