Submitted by narmstrong on Sat, 07/01/2023 - 02:15
transferring Class 14.1 property under s. 98(3) eliminates any additional Reg. 1100(1)(c.1)(i) CCA claims
Regarding the availability of the additional deduction under Reg. 1100(1)(c.1)(i) where a Class 14.1 property was acquired by a taxpayer after...
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 qu’un contribuable peut demander la somme supplémentaire prévue au sous-alinéa 1100(1)c.1)(i) à l’égard d’un bien de la catégorie 14.1 de l’annexe II lorsque ce bien est acquis après le 31 décembre 2016 à la suite d’une attribution de biens pour laquelle le paragraphe 98(3) s’est appliqué? / Whether a taxpayer may claim the additional amount under subparagraph 1100(1)(c.1)(i) in respect of a property included in Class 14.1 of Schedule II when the property is acquired after December 31, 2016 as a result of a distribution for which subsection 98(3) applied.
Position Adoptée: Non. / No.
Raisons: Le libellé du sous-alinéa 1100(1)c.1)(i) prévoit que la déduction d’amortissement supplémentaire de 2% est admise sur la partie de la fraction non amortie du coût en capital des biens de la catégorie 14.1 au début du 1er janvier 2017 qui excède le total des sommes décrites aux divisions (A) et (B) de ce sous-alinéa. / Wording of subparagraph 1100(1)(c.1)(i) provides that the additional allowance of 2% is allowed on the undepreciated capital cost of the class 14.1 at the beginning of 2017 that exceeds the total of all amounts described in clause (A) and (B) of that subparagraph.
a purported reassessment that does not change tax payable is not an assessment
A taxpayer whose T2 return had been assessed as filed, later, within the prescribed time limit under s. 37(11), filed a request to amend that...
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: Where a taxpayer request to amend a return of income is denied, which results in no change to any element of the return and no change is made to tax payable previously assessed, is the notice of a denial of the request a reassessment to which the objection rights provide by subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act are applicable.
Position: No.
Reasons: Adjustments to a return as filed that are denied, and therefore do not result in a change to taxable income and tax payable for the year in question, do not require a reassessment of the return by the Minister. In addition, where a Notice of Reassessment is issued by the Minister that does not indicate a change of the taxable income or tax payable previous assessed, this is a repetition of the previous assessment, and does not constitute a reassessment of the tax liability. According to the provisions of 165(1) of the Income Tax Act, the taxpayer has the right to object to an assessment (or reassessment). Therefore, where there has not been a reassessment or where there is a repetition of a previous assessment the taxpayer has no right to object.
56(1)(a); 81(1)(a); 110(1)(f)(i); Article XVIII(1) of the Canada-France Treaty; Article XVIII(1) of the Canada-Belgium Treaty; Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act; Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Act.
Principal Issues: 1. Are pensions received by Canadian resident taxpayers from the OECD subject to tax in Canada? 2. Are pensions received by Canadian resident taxpayers from NATO subject to tax in Canada?
Position: 1. Pensions from the OECD that arise in France are relieved from tax in Canada. 2. Pensions from NATO that arise in Belgium are not relieved from tax in Canada.
Reasons: 1. Article XVIII(1) of the Canada-France Treaty provides that pensions that arise in France in respect of past employment are only taxable in France. 2. Pension income is included in income pursuant to paragraph 56(1)(a) of the Act. There is no relief from taxation pursuant to Article XVIII(1) of the Canada-Belgium Treaty.
