Income Tax Severed Letters - 2025-01-22

Ruling

Unedited CRA Tags: 
Subsections 1100(2) and 1100(2.2) of the Regulations

2024 Ruling 2024-1008661R3 - Internal reorganization: Half-year rule -- attach -- Paragraph 1100(2.2)(e)

application of the half-year rule exception on s. 98(5) wind-up: parent was not dealing at arm’s length with the partnership at the moment of its dissolution

2022-0941241R3 concerned inter alia (i) two general partnerships: Partnership C between ParentCo and its wholly-owned subsidiary, SubCo; and...

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 251 - Subsection 251(1) - Paragraph 251(1)(c) parent was not dealing at arm’s length with a subsidiary partnership at the instant of its dissolution by operation of law 234

2024 Ruling 2024-1008661R3 - Internal reorganization: Half-year rule -- attach -- Paragraph 251(1)(c)

parent was not dealing at arm’s length with a subsidiary partnership at the instant of its dissolution by operation of law

2022-0941241R3 concerned the successive wind-ups of two “subsidiary” general partnerships as a result of the parent winding-up under s. 88(1)...

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 Regulations - Regulation 1100 - Subsection 1100(2.2) - Paragraph 1100(2.2)(e) application of the half-year rule exception on s. 98(5) wind-up: parent was not dealing at arm’s length with the partnership at the moment of its dissolution 125

Principal Issues: Supplementary Ruling to an internal reorganization including corporate wind-ups and partnership dissolutions. Principal issue in the supplementary ruling is: Does the half-year rule in subsection 1100(2) of the Regulations apply on the transfers of depreciable properties by the dissolving partnerships to the sole-proprietor (acquirer) as part of the Proposed Transactions in the primary ruling (2022-094124)?

Position: No; the half-year rule does not apply.

Reasons: Due to the applicability of the non-arm's length exception included in subsection 1100(2.2).

Technical Interpretation - External

Unedited CRA Tags: 
3, 136(2), 149(1)l), 149(2), 149(5) and 248(1) of the Act; sections 3, 14, 37, 49.4 and 143 of the Loi sur les coopératives.

7 January 2025 External T.I. 2022-0945291E5 F - Intérêts versés sur des obligations communautaires d’une coopérative -- attach -- Paragraph 149(1)(l)

members providing legitimate debt financing of an NPO can be consistent with the s. 149(1)(l) conditions/ preferred shares that can bear “interest” cannot be issued

A Quebec cooperative received loans from the community in support of it so as to enable it to carry out a project, contribute to its mission and...

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:

Principales Questions: Est-ce qu’une coopérative, qui se qualifie par ailleurs d'OBNL aux fins de l’alinéa 149(1)l) de la Loi, peut verser des intérêts sur des obligations communautaires et des parts privilégiées qu’elle a émises en faveur de membres et de non-membres sans perdre son statut d’OBNL? / Whether a cooperative, which otherwise qualifies as a NPO for the purposes of paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Act, can pay interest on community bonds and preferred shares that it has issued to members and non-members, without losing its NPO status.

Position Adoptée: Une coopérative qui se qualifie par ailleurs d'OBNL exonéré d'impôt peut verser des intérêts sur des obligations communautaires en faveur de ses créanciers, membres ou non-membres sans perdre son éligibilité à l’exemption, pourvu que le financement soit légitime, ne soit pas un stratagème pour distribuer des fonds excédentaires à ses membres, favorise les objectifs exonérés de l’organisation, et que son taux d’intérêt soit raisonnable. Une coopérative ne peut se qualifier d'OBNL exonéré d'impôt si elle a, à tout moment, le pouvoir de verser des intérêts sur des parts privilégiées. A cooperative which otherwise qualifies as a tax-exempt NPO can pay interest on community bonds in favour of creditors that are members or non-members without losing its tax exemption as long as the financing is legitimate, is not a stratagem to distribute surplus funds to its members, favours the exempt purposes of the organization, and the interest rate is reasonable. A cooperative cannot qualify as a tax-exempt NPO if it has, at any time, the ability to pay interest on preferred shares.

Raisons: Prior positions, jurisprudence.

Unedited CRA Tags: 
Definition of mineral resource in s. 248(1)

Principal Issues: Does lithium-bearing spodumene deposits in question meet the definition of mineral resource under subparagraph (d)(i)?

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Favourable opinion issued by NRCan.

Unedited CRA Tags: 
Definition of "mineral resource" in subsection 248(1)

Principal Issues: Whether NRCan can certify that the principal mineral to be extracted from the lithium-bearing silicate spodumene deposits of the taxpayer will be a principal mineral extracted from a non-bedded deposit.

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Positive Opinion provided by NRCan.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

Unedited CRA Tags: 
9; 248(1) "disposition"

17 January 2025 Internal T.I. 2024-1031821I7 - Crypto custodial staking on CSA-compliant platform -- attach -- Disposition

no disposition where crypto is deposited with or staked through a platform that holds the crypto in trust

A Canadian-resident taxpayer deposits crypto-assets held on capital account with a custodial centralized crypto-asset trading platform (the...

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 9 - Timing user rewards generated from staking crypto would be income when credited by the platform 183

17 January 2025 Internal T.I. 2024-1031821I7 - Crypto custodial staking on CSA-compliant platform -- attach -- Timing

user rewards generated from staking crypto would be income when credited by the platform

A Canadian-resident taxpayer “stakes” crypto-assets that are capital property with a custodial centralized crypto-asset trading platform (the...

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 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Disposition no disposition where crypto is deposited with or staked through a platform that holds the crypto in trust 185

Principal Issues: In custodial staking between a Canadian resident taxpayer and a crypto trading platform that is compliant with Canadian Securities Administrators regulations: 1) For crypto-assets held on account of capital, is there a disposition of crypto-assets by such taxpayers: a. When they deposit crypto-assets with the Platform? b. When they stake crypto-assets through the Platform? 2) Where taxpayers stake crypto-assets through the Platform: a. Are the staking rewards earned by taxpayers (“User Rewards”) income under section 9 of the Income Tax Act? b. Are the User Rewards income from a business or income from property? 3) When are User Rewards included in the income of a taxpayer?

Position: 1) Where custodial staking occurs through a platform that is compliant with the requirements of the Canadian Securities Administrators: a. No; b. No. 2) a. Yes, User Rewards earned through custodial staking are generally income under section 9. b. A taxpayer’s “level of activity” will generally be a relevant factor in distinguishing between income from a business and income from property. This determination requires an examination of the taxpayer’s whole course of conduct viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. 3) User Rewards can generally be included in a taxpayer's income in the taxation year when the User Rewards are credited to the taxpayer's account by the Platform, or on an accrual basis as they are earned.

Reasons: 1) Common law meaning of disposition. Based on the requirements of the Canadian Securities Administrators, beneficial ownership of the crypto-assets remains with the users at all relevant times. 2) a. Broad definitions of “business” and “property”. b. Jurisprudence including Canadian Marconi Co. v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 522. 3) Canderel Ltd. v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 147.

Unedited CRA Tags: 
39; 248(1) “disposition”, “property”; Civil Rehabilitation Act (Japan); Bankruptcy Act (Japan)

30 October 2024 Internal T.I. 2023-0996541I7 - Capital gain or loss in Mt. Gox insolvency -- attach -- Paragraph (a)

no disposition by platform users on its insolvency until they became entitled to payout

Following the 2014 insolvency of a Japanese bitcoin platform operator (“Mt. Gox”), which had permanently lost 650,000 bitcoin, the Tokyo court...

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 54 - Proceeds of Disposition - Paragraph (b) compensation for loss of bitcoin would give rise to a disposition governed by s. 44(2) 56

30 October 2024 Internal T.I. 2023-0996541I7 - Capital gain or loss in Mt. Gox insolvency -- attach -- Paragraph (b)

compensation for loss of bitcoin would give rise to a disposition governed by s. 44(2)

The Directorate indicated that if the taxpayer (contrary to its understanding of the facts) had been the beneficial owner of bitcoin held by a...

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 54 - Disposition - Paragraph (a) no disposition by platform users on its insolvency until they became entitled to payout 236

Principal Issues: For a taxpayer who held crypto-assets on account of capital on the Mt. Gox platform (the “Taxpayer”) and elected for Early Lump-Sum Repayment in the Mt. Gox civil rehabilitation proceedings in respect of his or her cryptocurrency claims against the estate of Mt. Gox:
1. Did the Taxpayer realize a capital gain or loss on his or her investment as a result of the collapse of the Mt. Gox platform? If yes, when was the capital gain or capital loss realized? 2. Are payments received or receivable by the Taxpayer from the estate of Mt. Gox in relation to Bitcoin Cash taxable under section 9 of the Act?

Position: 1. General comments. Taxpayers should realize capital gains or losses, as applicable, upon the disposition of their cryptocurrency claims. A disposition of the Taxpayer’s claim will likely have taken place at the time of receipt of the Early Lump-Sum Repayment. 2. Payments received from the Mt. Gox estate in relation to Bitcoin Cash should be included in the proceeds of disposition of creditors’ claims. The Taxpayer would not be required to include the “forked” Bitcoin Cash in income at the time of the “fork”.

Reasons: 1. Definition of "disposition" in subsection 248(1) 2. The Taxpayer had a right only in respect of bitcoin and not Bitcoin Cash on the Mt. Gox platform.