Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:14
Background
Pubco (which is a listed Canadian public corporation engaged in the commercialization of innovative products, and is reorganizing to...
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 reduction of paid-up capital of a public corporation qualifies as a reorganization under 84(2) so that 84(4.1) does not apply.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Complies with the law and CRA administrative positions.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
A sole-purpose production company (Prodco) grants to to Master Distributor the exclusive right to exhibit, distribute and license the exhibition...
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 the granting of the Option by the production company (Prodco), a qualified corporation, to a related company (Master Distributor), a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation, cause the 25-year copyright ownership requirement not to be met? 2- Will the exercise of the Option by Master Distributor cause the 25-year copyright ownership requirement not to be met? 3- Upon the exercise of the Option by Master Distributor, will the production be a Class 10(x) property to Master Distributor?
Position: 1 & 2 No. 3 Yes, provided the production does not subsequently become an excluded production (i.e. the 25-year copyright ownership requirement continues to be met) and the production meets the other requirements of a Canadian film or video production under subsection 1106(4) of the Regulations.
Reasons: 1 & 2 Clause 1106(1)(a)(iii)(A) of the definition of "excluded production" in the Regulations contemplates a transfer of the copyright between a qualified corporation and a related prescribed taxable Canadian corporation. 3 Wording of provisions (including subsection 1101(5k.1) of the Regulations which contemplates a transfer of the production between a qualified corporation and a related corporation).
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/29/2015 - 02:13
A Canadian-controlled private corporation makes a s. 184(3) election to deem the excess portion of a capital dividend to be a separate taxable...
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, in the context of the particular hypothetical situation, subsection 89(14.1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") would apply at the time that an election is made for the purposes of subsection 184(3), such that the designation under subsection 89(14) would be deemed to be made at the time the designation is required to be made, with the result that the separate taxable dividend pursuant to subsection 184(3) is designated to be an eligible dividend?
Principal Issues: Whether an individual, who is resident in Ireland but practising XXXXXXXXXX in Canada under a contract for service for approximately one year, is subject to Canadian income tax on his income earned in Canada.
Position: Likely not, under the circumstances.
Reasons: Question of fact. However, it remains difficult to distinguish the current situation from the facts considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Dudney.
