there is no need to assess a CRIC whose s. 212.3(7)(d) liability for failure to use its cross-border PUC has been eliminated through a late s. 212.3(7)(d)(i) filing
Submitted by narmstrong on Thu, 08/07/2025 - 03:01
there is no need to assess a CRIC whose s. 212.3(7)(d) liability for failure to use its cross-border PUC has been eliminated through a late s. 212.3(7)(d)(i) filing
A corporation resident in Canada (the “CRIC”) was able to offset a dividend deemed to be paid by s. 212.3(2)(a) to its non-resident parent...
The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.
there is no need to assess a CRIC whose s. 212.3(7)(d) liability for failure to use its cross-border PUC has been eliminated through a late s. 212.3(7)(d)(i) filing
282
Principal Issues: Whether an assessment of Part XIII tax under subsection 227(10) or 227(10.1) in respect of a deemed dividend under the foreign affiliate dumping rules can be made in a situation where the information under subparagraph 212.3(7)(d)(i) is provided after its filing-due date, causing paragraph 227(6.2)(c) to deem the unpaid Part XIII tax liability on the resulting deemed dividend under subparagraph 212.3(7)(d)(ii) to have been paid.
Position: Yes.
Reasons: Based on the wording of the legislation, the Minister has the discretion to make, at any time, an assessment under subsection 227(10) and (10.1), but not a requirement to do so. Therefore, if a Part XIII tax liability has previously been settled by a remittance (deemed or actual) of tax withheld, the Minister may choose not to issue an assessment of that Part XIII assessment as there is no unpaid balance owing, and therefore nothing required to be collected.
Submitted by narmstrong on Mon, 08/11/2025 - 01:02
the retention of Opco’s real estate in the parent’s Realtyco after a sale of Opco to the child’s Holdco does not render Realtyco a relevant group entity
Mr. A wholly owned both Opco, whose shares qualified as qualified small business corporation shares (QSBCS), and Holdco, which leased commercial...
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: Whether a corporation holding a rental property ("Holdco") that is rented to another corporation carrying on an active business to which it is related and associated ("Opco") qualifies as a relevant group entity, as defined in subparagraph 84.1(2.31)c)(iii), for the purpose of the immediate intergenerational business transfer rules found in subsection 84.1(2.31) in respect of three different factual scenarios.
Position Adoptée: No.
Raisons: In all three scenarios, the rental business, if any, carried on by Holdco would not be relevant in determining whether the Opco shares would qualify as QSBC shares at the time of a disposition of the Opco shares.
Principal Issues: Whether the statement made in document 2023-0974081E5 which stated that an automated cycler used for peritoneal dialysis did not appear to be an ‘artificial kidney machine’ under 118.2(2)(i) or a device that is described in the Act or Regulations is correct?
Position: The statement made in document 2023-0974081E5 regarding automated cyclers appears to have been made in error.
Reasons: Previous positions have historically viewed an automated cycler machine that is used for peritoneal dialysis to be an artificial kidney machine as contemplated in paragraph 118.2(2)(i).
