Income Tax Severed Letters - 2013-04-24

Ruling

2011 Ruling 2010-0360921R3 - Change of trustee - control

CRA Tags
256(7)(a)

Principal Issues: Whether control of a corporation controlled by a group of three corporate trustees is acquired when the sole shareholder of one of the corporate trustees transfers all the shares of that corporate trustee to a related person.

Position: No.

Reasons: 256(7)(a) deems control not to be acquired.

Ministerial Correspondence

14 January 2013 Ministerial Correspondence 2012-0469301M4 - Refund Interest Ministerial Mail

CRA Tags
12(1)(c)

Principal Issues: Whether refund interest should be added into income.

Position: Yes

Reasons: Legislation. Under paragraph 12(1)(c) of the Act any amount received or receivable by a taxpayer in the year as, on account of, in lieu of payment or in satisfaction of, interest has to be included into a taxpayer's income.

Technical Interpretation - External

5 April 2013 External T.I. 2013-0482701E5 - Are bunk houses qualified property for ITC

CRA Tags
127(11)(b)(vi), 127(9), ITR 4600

Principal Issues: Are bunk houses built for seasonal farm workers Qualified Property?

Position: No

Reasons: Law

2 April 2013 External T.I. 2012-0470591E5 F - Sale of automobile acquired after being leased

CRA Tags
13(2), 13(5.2)
the deemed s. 13(5.2)(b) cost addition is recognized for s. 13(2) purposes
s. 13(5.2)(b) addition must be taken into account for s. 13(2) purposes, including re no recapture

Principales Questions: 1. Where subsection 13(5.2) applies with respect to an automobile used to earn business income, whether the deemed cost of that automobile could be included in class 36.
2. Where subsection 13(5.2) applies with respect to an automobile used to earn business income, whether such automobile could be class 10.1 property.
3. Where subsection 13(5.2) applies with respect to an automobile which is class 10.1 property, whether the recapture of depreciation would be included in the business income of the taxpayer.

Position Adoptée: 1. No.
2. It may be class 10.1 property depending on the deemed cost computed under paragraph 13(5.2)(a).
3. No.

Raisons: 1. The automobile (being used to earn business income) is depreciable property without reference to paragraph 13(5.2)(c). Therefore, paragraph 13(5.2)(c) does not apply and the automobile is not class 36 property.
2. The deemed rules to compute the cost of the automobile under paragraph 13(5.2)(a) will be used to determine whether the automobile is class 10.1 property or not.
3. Wording of subsection 13(2).

22 March 2013 External T.I. 2012-0458481E5 - Foreign Pension Receipt

CRA Tags
56(1)(a), 248(1), Cda-UK Tax Convention - Article 17, ITCIA

Principal Issues: The Canadian tax implications of the receipt of income out of a foreign pension plan.

Position: In general, a Canadian resident must include any pension benefits received in a year in his or her worldwide income. Based on limited information available, the total amounts received are taxable.

Reasons: The total amounts received are included in income under subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i) of the Act. There is no provision in Article 17 of the Canada-U.K. Income Tax Convention which would exempt the amounts from Canadian income tax.

13 March 2013 External T.I. 2012-0468971E5 - Retiring Allowance

CRA Tags
ITR 200, 5(1), ITR 103(6e), 248(1), 56(1)(a)(ii)

Principal Issues: Is the amount of $1,000, paid by an employer to its former employee pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, a retiring allowance? If so, what are the reporting requirements?

Position: Question of fact. It appears that the amount is indeed a retiring allowance.

Reasons: But for the loss of employment, the amount would have been received and the purpose of the payment was to compensate a loss of employment.

13 March 2013 External T.I. 2012-0473291E5 F - Société de personnes - maison détruite par le feu

CRA Tags
44(5), 103(1), 40(2)c), 54 "principal residence", 40(2)(b), 54 "proceeds of disposition", 44(1), 44(2), 248(1) "disposition"
partner can use the principal residence exemption re gain allocated by partnership from disposition of personally-used principal residence, including following s. 44 deferral
replacement property generally is expected to have the same material characteristics
s. 40(2)(c) unavailable re disposition of building only from fire

Principales Questions: Dans une situation où une société de personnes possède une maison qui est habitée par l'associé de la société de personnes ou son père, qui est détruite par un incendie et dont le produit d'assurance sert à reconstruire une maison de remplacement, 1. si les règles sur l'échange de biens ne s'appliquent pas, est-ce que c'est la maison seule ou la maison et son fonds de terre qui sont disposés? 2. Est-ce que l'associé de la société de personnes pourrait bénéficier de l'exemption de résidence principale? 3. Si les règles sur l'échange des biens s'appliquent, l'associé de la société de personnes pourrait-il bénéficier de l'exemption de résidence principale lors d'une disposition éventuelle de la maison de remplacement?/ In a situation where a partnership owns a house which is inhabited by a member of the partnership or his father, which is completely destroyed by a fire, and of which insurance proceeds are used to rebuild a new replacement house that will be used by the partner 1. If the rules on the exchange of properties do not apply, is the house alone or the house with the land disposed of? 2. Could the partner use the principal residence exemption? 3. After the application of the exchange of properties rules, could the partner use the principal residence exemption in a future disposition of the replacement house and the land?

Position Adoptée: 1. Lorsqu'un incendie détruit complètement une maison, seule la maison et non son fonds de terre fait l'objet d'une disposition. 2. Question de fait. par position administrative, l'associé pourrait utiliser l'exemption de résidence principale pour réduire ou éliminer la partie du gain en capital tiré de la disposition de la maison qui lui est attribuée en vertu du contrat de société de personnes, pourvu qu'il satisfasse aux autres exigences de la définition de résidence principale à l'article 54 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu. 3. Question de fait, possiblement. 1. When a fire destroys completely a house, only the house is disposed and not the land. 2. Question of fact. By administrative position, a member of a partnership could use the principal residence exemption to reduce or eliminate the portion of any gain on the disposition of the property which is allocated to that partner by the partnership, provided that the other requirements of the definition of section 54 of the Income Tax Act are met. 3. Question of fact, possibly.

Raisons: 1. Seule une immobilisation a été détruite: le terrain sous-jacent ou adjacent à la maison n'est pas détruit. 2. Position décrite actuellement au paragraphe 39 du bulletin d'interprétation IT-120R6 et réitérée dans nos interprétations techniques et si la maison constitue une résidence principale pour l'associé selon les conditions de la définition de résidence principale prévue à l'article 54 de la Loi. 3. Mêmes raisons qu'au point 2. // 1. Only a capital property has been destroyed: the land upon which the house stands and any adjoining land is not destroyed. 2. Actual administrative position described at paragraph 39 of interpretation bulletin IT-120R6 and if the house qualifies as the principal residence of the member of the partnership pursuant the definition of section 54. 3. Same reasons as mentioned in point 2.

12 March 2013 External T.I. 2012-0468271E5 - UK pension transfer to Canada

CRA Tags
60(j)(i), 56(1)(a)(i), Art 17 of Canada-United Kingdom tax treaty

Principal Issues: Whether a Canadian resident would be entitled to claim a deduction under paragraph 60(j) of the Income Tax Act for a lump-sum transfer from a United Kingdom pension plan to an RRSP? Would this transfer impact the individual's regular RRSP deduction limit?

Position: Where the individual transfers the amount of the lump-sum pension benefit to an RRSP and all of the conditions under subparagraph 60(j)(i) of the Income Tax Act are met, the individual is eligible for a deduction and the corresponding transfer does not impact the unused RRSP deduction room of that individual.

Reasons: Provided for under paragraph 60(j) of the Income Tax Act

27 February 2013 External T.I. 2013-0477601E5 - Interest Deductibility on Restructured Borrowings

CRA Tags
20(1)(c)

Principal Issues: Whether interest would be deductible where borrowings are restructured.

Position: A question of fact. Generally yes provided that there is a direct link between the borrowed funds and an eligible use.

Reasons: Previous positions and court cases.

25 January 2013 External T.I. 2012-0472311E5 - Flow-Through Shares

CRA Tags
66.1(9), 66.1(6)(d), 66(12.601), 66(12.6), 66(12.62)

Principal Issues: 1. What factors are involved in the re-characterization of certain CDE to CEE? 2. Is there a limit to the amount of funds you can use to incur exploration and development expenses in a given taxation year under a flow-through share agreement?

Position: 1. General comments provided. 2. No, but the PBC cannot renounce CEE or CDE in excess of the consideration received from the flow-through shareholders for the flow-through shares.

21 January 2013 External T.I. 2012-0465071E5 - Manufacturing and processing

CRA Tags
ITR Schedule II, ITR 1104(1), 125.1(1), ITR 1101(5b.1), 123.4(2)

Principal Issues: 1) Whether the taking, editing and printing of pictures using photographic equipment, computers, printers and a building can qualify as "manufacturing and processing" for purposes of the M&P credit

Position: 1) Question of fact.

Reasons: 1) Based on the meaning of M&P and our comments in IT-145R

14 January 2013 External T.I. 2012-0469571E5 F - Settlement of rights arising out of marriage

CRA Tags
73(1.01)
transfer of appreciated property by recipient of court-ordered support to the payer of support qualified for rollover

Principales Questions: Whether the transfer of property from an ex-spouse to the other that would be done to settle the lump sum awarded by the court to that ex-spouse for maintenance and support purposes would be considered to be a transfer of property in settlement of rights arising out the marriage as described in paragraph 73(1.01)(b) of the Act.

Position Adoptée: Yes.

Raisons: The lump sum awarded by the court for maintenance and support purposes would be a right arising out of marriage and the transfer would be done to settle that right.

12 December 2012 External T.I. 2012-0462511E5 - Canadian Resource Property - Sale- CEE

CRA Tags
66.7(3), 66(1), 66.7(12)

Principal Issues: 1. Can a corporation that disposes of all or substantially all of its Canadian resource property in a transaction that is subject to the successor rules during a taxation year claim a deduction for CEE for that year? 2. A principal-business corporation can only claim CEE to the lesser of the amount incurred or income earned. Does income mean income from all sources or only income from resource activities?

Position: 1. Yes. 2. Income in this context means income from all sources.

Reasons: 1. Wording of legislation. 2. Wording of the legislation.

Conference

30 October 2012 Roundtable, 2012-0462861C6 - 2012 Ontario CTF Conference Question #16

CRA Tags
149(5), 149(1)(l)

Principal Issues: CRA's position of various payment plans in respect of membership fees for a NPO that offers dining, recreational or sporting facilities for its members.

Position: General comments provided

Reasons: The CRA's position is that interest income, regardless of source, is considered to be income from property for the purpose of subsection 149(5). The determination of whether a payment plan includes income from property is a question of fact.

5 October 2012 Roundtable, 2012-0453121C6 F - Fiducie au conjoint-police d'assurance-vie

CRA Tags
70(6)(b)(ii)
no tainting of spousal trust if policy transferred to it no longer has premiums to be paid

Principales Questions: Il existe des polices exonérées conjointes au dernier décès dont le coût d'assurance cesse au premier décès. Une telle police demeure ainsi en vigueur sans que des primes soient payables et la prestation est percevable au deuxième décès (soit celui du conjoint bénéficiaire de la fiducie). Aux fins du sous-alinéa 70(6)b)(ii) L.I.R., l'ARC peut-elle confirmer qu'une police contenant ce type d'avenant suspendant le paiement des primes tout au long de la détention fiduciaire en faveur du conjoint n'aurait pas pour effet en soi de la disqualifier en tant que fiducie au conjoint?

Position Adoptée: En présumant que la propriété du contrat d'assurance exonérée, suite au décès du testateur qui est le preneur et titulaire de la police, a été transférée légalement à cette fiducie et que cette dernière n'a pas (ou ses fiduciaires) à débourser aucune somme à même le revenu ou le capital de la fiducie afin de maintenir la police en vigueur et que nulle autre personne, autre que l'époux ou le conjoint de fait survivant, ne peut, avant le décès de l'époux ou du conjoint de fait, recevoir ou obtenir toute partie, s'il y a lieu, du revenu ou de la valeur de rachat de cette police, il nous apparaît que la condition du sous-alinéa 70(6)b)(ii) serait respectée.

Raisons: L'ARC est d'avis que l'obligation de financer une police d'assurance-vie à même le capital ou revenu d'une fiducie en serait une en vertu de laquelle une personne autre que l'époux ou le conjoint de fait survivant peut obtenir l'usage de toute partie du revenu ou du capital aux fins du sous-alinéa 70(6)b)(ii).

29 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426411C6 - CCPC determination - paragraph 251(5)(b)

CRA Tags
251(5)b)

Principal Issues: Whether paragraph 251(5)(b) will deny a Canadian private corporation's CCPC status if non-residents hold a sufficient number of options to have de jure control if only those options are exercised, notwithstanding that a sufficient number of options to preserve the corporation's CCPC status might also be held by Canadian residents?

Position: Yes

Reasons: The CRA's position, as stated at the 2007 CTF CRA Roundtable, that paragraph 251(5)(b) should be applied on a "holder-by-holder basis," remains unchanged

29 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426171C6 F - Débentures convertibles

CRA Tags
212(3), 214(8), 214(7)

Principal Issues: Quel est le statut de l'examen par l'ARC concernant l'application possible de l'impôt de la partie XIII aux débentures convertibles?

Position: Aucune.

Reasons: Voir ci-dessous.

29 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426571C6 - Change in position re: allocation of bonus to HCSA

CRA Tags
63, 6(1)(a)(i)

Principal Issues: Effective January 1, 2013, employees will no longer be allowed to convert a future bonus to obtain additional flex credits in a HCSA.

Position: An election to allocate flex credits to a HCSA is an allocation of forgone cash remuneration and should be subject to tax.

29 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426361C6 F - Price adjustment clause and redemption of shares

CRA Tags
84(3)
deemed dividend arising from preferred share price adjustment clause arises in the year of actual payment
deemed dividend through operation of price adjustment clause arises in the adjustment rather than redemption year

Principal Issues: In the course of an estate freeze, preferred shares are issued to a taxpayer in consideration for common shares. The redemption value of those shares would be equal to the fair market value of the common shares acquired by the corporation. The rights, privileges, conditions and restrictions of the preferred shares described in the articles of incorporation would contain a price adjustment clause. Pursuant to that price adjustment clause, the redemption value of the preferred shares would be adjusted to reflect the fair market value of the consideration if the amount considered to be the fair market value is changed. If the preferred shares are redeemed before an upward adjustment to the redemption value, the corporation would pay an additional amount to the taxpayer. What would be the tax treatment of such additional payment made by the corporation in favour of the taxpayer?

Position: In such a case, the CRA's position is that the additional payment made by the corporation in favour of the taxpayer, as a result of the price adjustment clause becoming operative, would be treated as a dividend. Such a dividend would have to be included in the shareholder's income in the year of receipt under subsection 84(3) of the Act.

Reasons: Previous position.

29 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426291C6 - Income Tax Folio Initiative Update

Principal Issues: The CTF requested an update regarding which Interpretation Bulletins had been identified as priorities for update.

28 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0425911C6 - Remittance Basis Taxation

CRA Tags
Treaties Article XXI of the Canada-Singapore Income Tax Convention

Principal Issues: Where Part XIII tax is withheld from interest payment made by Canadian-resident to non-arm's-length Singapore resident at non-treaty rate of 25% by virtue of Article XXI of Canada-Singapore Income Tax Convention (1980), whether refund of a portion of tax withheld will be made when the income is subsequently remitted to or received in Singapore and included in the computation of income for Singapore tax purposes.

Position: Under consideration.

Reasons: An excess Part XIII tax payment arises when the income is remitted to or received in Singapore and is required to be included in the computation of income under Singapore laws. The excess can only be refunded under subsection 227(6) if written application is made within two years after the end of calendar year in which the Part XIII tax was originally paid. However, we are currently considering whether Article XXI of Canada-Singapore Income Tax Convention provides implicit authority to override the time limitation in subsection 227(6).

27 November 2011 Roundtable, 2011-0426151C6 - Interest Deductibility

CRA Tags
20(1)(c), 84(4.1)

Principal Issues: Would a corporate distribution subject to 84(4.1) of the Act be considered a return of capital or the payment of a dividend for interest deductibility purposes?

Position: A return of capital.

Reasons: The application of subsection 84(4.1) of the Act does not, in and of itself, alter the "hole" of capital withdrawn from the business.

28 November 2010 Roundtable, 2010-0387141C6 - s. 116 Certificate for Property that is not TCP

CRA Tags
116

Principal Issues: Will the CRA be willing to issue a certificate pursuant to s. 116 where the shares are not considered to be taxable Canadian property?

Position: Yes

Reasons: The CRA will assume the property to be taxable Canadian property and process the request for the certificate. The CRA will not be making a determination as to whether or not the property is taxable Canadian property at the time of the s. 116 request.

28 November 2010 Roundtable, 2010-0386071C6 - Section 216 Returns - Capitalized Expenses

CRA Tags
21(3), 21(1), 216(1)(b)

Principal Issues: Whether a non-resident person who files a section 216 return and computes (under Part I of the Act) the person's tax liability in respect of the rental income from a rental building located in Canada can use capitalized expenses to reduce or eliminate the capital gain on the subsequent sale of the building?

Position: No

Reasons: Section 216 specifically provides that the non-resident person shall pay tax under Part I on the rental income without affecting the tax otherwise payable by the person under Part I of the Act

17 May 2012 IFA Roundtable, 2012-0444151C6 - Hybrid Partnerships and Branch Tax Liability

CRA Tags
Treateis Article X(6), Treaties Article XXIX-A, 219

Principal Issues: Application of Article X(6) with respect to profits earned through a partnership that is a resident of the United States for the purposes of the Canada-United States Tax Convention.

Position: If the partnership would be eligible to claim benefits under Article X(6), the member can claim those benefits in computing branch tax liability on the member's share of the partnership income included in the member's taxable income earned in Canada. Alternatively, if the member can otherwise claim benefits under Article X(6), those benefits would apply to its share of the partnership's profits earned through a Canadian permanent establishment.

Reasons: The partnership is a company and a resident of the United States under the Canada-United States Tax Convention. Consistent with previous approach to providing treaty benefits in respect of income earned or received by partnerships that are residents of the United States under the Canada-United States Tax Convention.

28 November 2011 CTF Roundtable, 2011-0425901C6 - Does share derive value principally from real prop

CRA Tags
248(1) "taxable Canadian property"
whether shares derive their value from real property is determined irrespective of debt allocation

Principal Issues: How to determine whether a share derives its value principally from real property.

Position: Gross asset value method.

Reasons: This is the approach recommended by the OECD Commentary for purposes of tax treaties. The definition of "taxable Canadian property" in the Act is intended, generally, to be in line with the definition of "real or immovable property" in our tax treaties.

28 November 2010 CTF Roundtable Q. 5, 2010-0385991C6 - 2010 CTF - Q. 5 - 55(2) and GRIP

CRA Tags
89(1), 55(2)

Principal Issues: (i) Where a CCPC pays an eligible dividend across a single class of shares owned 50/50 by a Canadian resident individual and a Canadian resident CCPC, both of whom are not related, can the CRA confirm that there is no reduction in the payer CCPC's GRIP in respect of an eligible dividend for the portion of the dividend that subsection 55(2) applies to, where the dividend exceeds the safe income attributable to the shares owned by the recipient CCPC? (ii) If the recipient CCPC does not file a designation pursuant to paragraph 55(5)(f), can the CRA confirm that there is no reduction of the payer CCPC's GRIP in respect of the 50% portion of the dividend paid to the recipient CCPC? (iii) If the recipient CCPC files a designation pursuant to paragraph 55(5)(f) whereby it is deemed to have received two separate dividends, one in the amount of the safe income attributable to the shares on which the dividend was paid, and the other for the balance of the payment, can the CRA confirm that there is a reduction of the payer CCPC's GRIP equal to the aggregate of the full amount of the eligible dividend received by the individual shareholder and the portion of the dividend received by the recipient CCPC that was subject to an election pursuant to paragraph 55(5)(f) and equal to the safe income attributable to the shares on which the dividend was paid?

Position: No. In all cases there would be a reduction of the payer CCPC's GRIP at the end of the taxation year following the year in which the corporation would have paid an eligible dividend, equal to the full amount of the eligible dividend declared pursuant to subsection 89(14), in accordance with subparagraph (a)(i) of element "G" of the definition of GRIP in subsection 89(1).

Reasons: In accordance with the provisions of the ITA.

28 November 2010 CTF Roundtable Q. 6, 2010-0386001C6 - 2010 CTF - Q. 6 - 84(2) and Pipeline Transactions

CRA Tags
84(2)

Principal Issues: Whether the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") would confirm that subsection 84(2) would not apply in the context of a particular transaction to deem the Estate to have received a dividend from the "original corporation"?

Position: No, in light of the limited facts provided in the scenario, we are not able to confirm that subsection 84(2) would not apply in the context of the series of transactions described. In our view, in the course of examining the potential application of subsection 84(2) in the context of the series of transactions described, the focus should rather be on determining whether the funds or property of the original corporation have been distributed or otherwise appropriated in any manner whatever to or for the benefit of the shareholders, on the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of the business of the original corporation, not the pipeline corporation. Furthermore, subsection 84(2) applies to a particular corporation "on the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of its business". Accordingly, the business that a corporation conducts may be wound up, amongst other actions, pursuant to subsection 84(2) without affecting the corporation's existence, contrary to the winding-up of a corporation which brings to an end both the existence of the corporation and that of its business. Consequently, circumstances falling short of the dissolution of a corporation may still result in the application of subsection 84(2).

Reasons: In accordance with the provisions of the ITA.

27 November 2011 CTF Roundtable Q. 23, 2011-0426371C6 - 2011 CTF - Q.23 - Post-Mortem Planning and 84(2)

CRA Tags
84.1, 84(2)

Principal Issues: 1) Whether the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") would comment on the anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Act ("Act") which could apply in the context of a particular series of transactions designed to implement a post-mortem estate planning pipeline strategy? 2) Whether the CRA would comment on any expected amendments to the Act in respect of the implementation of pipeline strategies?

Position: 1) Comments provided. 2) Amendments to the Act are not within the discretion of the CRA. Matters involving a change to the law and / or tax policy are within the responsibility of the Department of Finance.

Reasons: In accordance with the provisions of the Act and our previous positions.

30 October 2012 Ontario CTF Roundtable, 2012-0462931C6 - CTF Ontario Conference- Trust payment to Minor

CRA Tags
104(13), 104(24)
notice of distribution by note to be given by year end

Principal Issues: 1. Evidence of payable to Minor from Trust

Position: 1.Promissory note to Guardian

Reasons: 1.Issue dealt with previously see 2010 Step q.2

30 October 2012 Ontario CTF Roundtable Q. 8, 2012-0462841C6 - Ontario CTF – Q8 Residency of a Trust

trust residence following Fundy

Principal Issues: Impact on the CRA published position in relation to the factors it considers indicative for purposes of establishing residency of a trust in light of the 2012 SCC decision in St. Michael Trust Corp.

Position: Residence of a trust is a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of each case - the SCC decision affirmed the CRA view that the residence of the trustee does not always determine the residence of the trust.

Reasons: Comments as previously published by the Directorate at the Prairie conference and the BC conference

30 October 2012 Ontario CTF Roundtable Q. 10, 2012-0462961C6 - 2012 Ont CTF Q10 - Executors' Fees and Withholding

CRA Tags
153(1)(g), 6(1)(c), 9(1), ITR 200(1)

Principal Issues: Various questions posed regarding tax treatment, reporting and withholding requirements in respect of executors' fees.

Position: See response.

Reasons: See response.

30 October 2012 Ontario CTF Roundtable Q. 14, 2012-0462941C6 - 2012 Ontario CTF Q14 - Circularity with 164(6)

CRA Tags
164(6), 40(3.6), 40(3.61)

Principal Issues: The CTF has asked how CRA would administer subsection 164(6) where a circularity issue arises in applying subsection 40(3.61).

Position: We recognize that the circularity issue exists on a technical reading of 40(3.6), 40(3.61) and 164(6). CRA will review on a case-by-case basis.

Reasons: To date, we have never had an actual case referred to our directorate.

29 November 2011 November CTF Roundtable, 2011-0426561C6 - Public Warehouse: PIA

Principal Issues: Would the CRA be prepared to reconsider its view on the meaning of an agent for purposes of paragraphs 400(2)(b) and 2600(2)(a) of the Regulation?

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Sufficient support exists for using the legal meaning of the word "Agent".

29 November 2011 November CTF Roundtable, 2011-0425931C6 - 2011 CTF - Question 20

CRA Tags
248(1) "taxable Canadian property"

Principal Issues: Is it required that the 25% test and the 50% test used in the definition of taxable Canadian property that is applicable to shares of a corporation listed on a designated stock exchange, be satisfied at the same time in order for shares of a corporation to be considered to be taxable Canadian property?

Position: Yes

Reasons: The legislation establishes that both the 25% test and the 50% test must be met at a particular point in time during the 60-month period.

28 November 2011 November CTF Roundtable, 2011-0426591C6 - Deemed services permanent establishment

CRA Tags
Treaties Article V(9)

Principal Issues: Whether CRA should take administrative position on paragraph 9 of Article V.

Position: Yes

Reasons: In cases where services are subcontracted to a Canadian resident entity for an arm's length fee, the correct amount of income will be taxable in Canada, without creating an undue administrative burden on US resident.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

20 March 2013 Internal T.I. 2013-0480201I7 F - Montants forfaitaires - XXXXXXXXXX

CRA Tags
ITR 201, 3, 63, 5, 120.31, 110.2, 200(1)
amounts paid to workers in wage-discrimination suit that were in excess of reasonable amount for rights’ violations or non-pecuniary damages would be employment income
portion of wage discrimination award that related to loss of salary (based on days’ worked) would be qualifying amount

Principales Questions: 1. Est-ce que certains montants versés à des employés dans le cadre d'une entente de règlement à l'amiable en matière d'équité salariale sont imposables? Are certain amounts paid to employees by their employer with respect to an out of court pay equity settlement agreement taxable?
2. Quelles sont les obligations de remplir certains formulaires de renseignements par l'employeur? What are the obligations of the employer with respect to providing information returns?

Position Adoptée: 1. Si les montants sont versés pour compenser une perte de salaires des employés, ils doivent être inclus dans le calcul du revenu des employés à titre de revenu d'emploi. Cependant, s'ils sont versés pour compenser la violation des droits des employés selon la Loi canadienne des droits de la personne, ils ne sont pas imposables. If the amounts paid by the employer to the employees are to compensate lost wages, they must be included in the income of the employees as employment income. However, if the amounts represent damages received by the employees for violation of human rights, they are not taxable for the employees. 2. L'employeur doit émettre des T4 et des T1198 si les montants versés sont pour compenser la perte de salaire des employés. Il doit émettre des T5 pour les intérêts se rapportant à des indemnités qualifiées de revenu d'emploi. The employer must file T4 and T1198 if the amounts were paid to employees as a wage loss compensation. The employer must file T5 for interests if they are related to compensation of lost wages.

Raisons: 1. Dépendamment de la détermination de la nature des paiements par les parties à l'entente à l'amiable. Les montants versés qui représentent des dommages-intérêts généraux pour préjudice moral n'ont pas à être inclus dans le calcul du revenu des employés selon notre position indiquée dans le bulletin d'interprétation IT-365R2. Depending on the determination of the nature of the payments made by the parties of the agreement. The amounts paid to employees that represent general damages for pain and suffering are not required to be included in their income pursuant to our position in the interpretation bulletin IT-365R2.
2. Application de l'alinéa 153(1)a) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu et les articles 200 et 201 du Règlement de l'impôt sur le revenu. Application of paragraph 153(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and sections 200 and 201 of the Income Tax Regulations.

20 December 2012 Internal T.I. 2012-0463681I7 - Consequential Reassessment

CRA Tags
12(1)(e), 152(4.3), 18(1)(e), 152(4), 20(1)(m), 152(3.1), 152(4.4)

Principal Issues: Whether the Minister could raise a consequential assessment to include in the immediately preceding year a reserve deducted in a reassessment of the previous year. A notice of objection was filed in respect of the reassessment, although the amount claimed as the reserve is not disputed.

Position: Yes.

Reasons: As the objection to the reassessment is yet to be decided, the time frame for issuing the reassessment has not expired.

30 October 2012 Internal T.I. 2011-0419931I7 - Subparagraph 149(5)(e)(ii)

CRA Tags
149(5)(e)(ii), 149(1)(l)

Principal Issues: 1. Was the capital gain realized by the Corporation on the sale of XXXXXXXXXX taxable? 2. Was the interest income earned by the Corporation taxable pursuant to 149(5)?

Position: 1. Yes. 2. Yes

Reasons: 1. XXXXXXXXXX was not used exclusively for and directly in the provision of XXXXXXXXXX facilities to members. 2. Previous position.