Income Tax Severed Letters - 2019-06-12

Conference

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 1, 2019-0798831C6 - Thin capitalization

Unedited CRA Tags
18(4), 18(5)
contributed surplus will cease to be recognized if the contributor ceases to be a specified non-resident shareholder

Principal Issues: Whether the positions adopted in document 9521415 still represent the CRA’s views. More specifically, (a) whether the definition of "specified shareholder" in subsection 18(5) of the Act requires a person to own shares of the corporation; and (b) whether an amount of contributed surplus contributed by a person that was a specified non-resident shareholder at the time of the contribution may be included in the calculation of the average referred to in the definition of “equity amount” in subparagraph 18(5)(a)(ii) of the Act where the person is no longer a specified non-resident shareholder at the time that the calculation in subsection 18(4) of the Act is made.

Position: Document 9521415 still represents the CRA’s position.
1(a) Yes. 1(b) No.

Reasons: Consistent with CRA’s previous positions provided in document 9521415.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 2, 2019-0798751C6 - Shared workspaces and PE

Unedited CRA Tags
2(3)(b); 115(1)(a)(ii); 253; Article V, Canada-U.S. Tax Convention
a Canadian shared-work space can readily constitute a PE

Principal Issues: In what circumstances will a shared workspace in Canada used by a U.S. resident person, carrying on business in Canada, be considered to be a permanent establishment of the U.S. resident person in Canada, assuming Articles V(5) and V(9) of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention do not apply?

Position: Whether a shared workspace in Canada used by a non-resident results in a PE in Canada is a question of fact and would have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Reasons: A PE analysis for a shared workspace is no different than the PE analysis for any other place.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 3, 2019-0798741C6 - Participating Debt Interest & US Treaty

Unedited CRA Tags
212(1)(b)(ii), 212(3) “participating debt interest”; Art. X(6)(b) of the Canada-US Tax Treaty; 10(6) ITAR
contingent interest under Art. XI(6)(b) of the US Treaty does not taint contemporaneous fixed interest

Principal Issues: Whether the payment of an “additional participating amount” on an obligation would, in and by itself, prevent any further “periodic non-participating interest” payments to be relieved from Part XIII withholding tax based on Article X(6)(b) of the Canada-US Tax Treaty?

Position: No.

Reasons: Wording of the tax treaty.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 4, 2019-0798721C6 - 78(1)(b)(ii) deemed loan & thin capitalization

Unedited CRA Tags
78(1), 18(4), 18(5), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d)
unpaid simple interest that is deemed to be a loan by s. 78(1)(b)(ii) generally is not outstanding debts to specified non-residents
deemed s. 78(1)(b)(ii) loan is not also deemed to bear interest

Principal Issues: 1. Assuming compound interest does not accrue on unpaid simple interest and subparagraph 78(1)(b)(ii) deems the amount of that simple interest, net of any taxes deducted or withheld, to be a loan, is that deemed loan considered to be included in “outstanding debts to specified non-residents” as defined in subsection 18(5)? 2. Where compound interest does accrue on unpaid simple interest and subparagraph 78(1)(b)(ii) deems the amount of that simple interest, net of any taxes deducted or withheld, to be a loan, is the amount of that deemed loan considered to be an outstanding debt to a specified non-resident only when the compound interest has been paid?

Position: 1. No. 2. Yes.

Reasons: 1. The deemed loan does not meet the conditions noted in the subsection 18(5) definition of “outstanding debts to specified non-residents”. 2. Generally, where subparagraph 78(1)(b)(ii) deems the amount of such simple interest, net of taxes, to be a loan, an amount equal to the deemed loan would not be considered to be an outstanding debt to a specified non-resident for purposes of subsections 18(4) and 18(5) until the compound interest is paid and is deductible pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(d).

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 5, 2019-0798811C6 - Functional currency

Unedited CRA Tags
39(1) and (2), 261(3), 261(11)
a functional currency reporter realizes capital gains or losses from FX fluctuations when it receives a Cdn$ tax refund for an earlier functional currency year

Principal Issues: Can fluctuations in exchange rate between Canadian dollars and a functional currency reporter's elected functional currency in respect of income taxes payable result in foreign exchange gains or losses to which the rules in section 39 of the Act would apply?

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Canadian currency fluctuations relative to the reporter’s elected functional currency result in capital gains or losses to which the rules in section 39 of the Act would apply in these situations.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 6, 2019-0798861C6 - Non-resident filing income tax return

Unedited CRA Tags
150(1), 150(1.1), 150(5), 162(2.1), 162(7)
non-resident partners of a partnership that has disposed of TCP must file Part I returns even if a s. 116 certificate indicates that all Part I tax is paid
Words and Phrases
tax is payable

Principal Issues: Whether the disposition of taxable Canadian property (but not treaty-protected property) by a non-resident partner is considered to be an excluded disposition under subsection 150(5), thereby allowing the non-resident to avoid having to file a Canadian income tax return under subsection 150(1).

Position: No in the facts provided.

Reasons: As the non-resident partner has Part I tax payable for the year of the disposition, there is a requirement to file a Canadian income tax return.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 7, 2019-0798821C6 - Subsection 246(1) and Non-Residents

Unedited CRA Tags
15(1), 56(2), 214(3)(a) and 246(1)
a s. 15(1)-relevant s. 246(1)(a) benefit generally will not subject a non-resident to Part I tax

Principal Issues: Where an amount of an indirect benefit would be included in computing a non-resident taxpayer’s income under subsection 15(1) of the Act, if the amount of the benefit were a payment made directly to the non-resident taxpayer and if the non-resident taxpayer were resident in Canada, would the CRA interpret paragraph 246(1)(a) of the Act as including such a shareholder’s benefit in that non-resident taxpayer’s taxable income earned in Canada even though the benefit is akin to income from property rather than any of the Canadian income sources described in subsection 2(3) of the Act?

Position: To the extent that only subsection 15(1) of the Act is relevant in the analysis as to whether a benefit is being conferred under paragraph 246(1)(a), such a benefit would generally not be considered to be taxable income earned in Canada, as it would not be included under subsection 2(3) and Division D of Part I of the Act.

Reasons: A non-resident’s tax liability under Part I of the Act, including any liability that may result from the inclusion of a benefit under paragraph 246(1)(a) of the Act, is generally determined by the non-resident taxpayer’s taxable income earned in Canada under subsection 2(3) and Division D of Part I of the Act. Whether the amount of the benefit can be considered to be taxable income earned in Canada will depend, among other things, on the nature of the benefit being conferred.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 8, 2019-0798841C6 - Active Trade or Business Test under the LOB Clause

Unedited CRA Tags
Paragraph 3 of Article XXIX-A of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty
Art. XXIX-A(3) Canada-US LOB clause exclusion would be unavailable to income derived by a Canadian subsidiary from an offshore connected-business FA

Principal Issues: In the scenario provided, does paragraph 3 of Article XXIX-A of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty apply where a Canadian corporation (“Canco”) pays a dividend to its U.S. resident parent corporation (“USco”), if such income is indirectly derived through the business of Canco’s foreign affiliate that is a resident in a third country?

Position: No.

Reasons: The dividend income paid to USco is not derived from Canada in connection with or incidental to the trade or business of USco.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 9, 2019-0798761C6 - Surplus Documentation

Unedited CRA Tags
113(1), 152(7), 230(1), 231.1(1)(a), Reg. 5900, 5901(1), 5901(2)(b), 5901(2.1), 5901(2.2)
CRA generally denies a s. 113(1) deduction where Canco has failed to prepare surplus accounts
failure by Canco to prepare surplus accounts precludes late- filed Reg. 5901(2)(b) election

Principal Issues: (1) What information should a Canco maintain with respect to a deduction claimed under subsection 113(1) of the Act ("113 Deduction") in respect of a dividend paid by a FA in a taxation year? Are detailed surplus account computations essential to support the 113 Deduction? (2) In a particular set of circumstances, would the CRA accept the late filing by Canco of an election under subsections 5901(2.1) and (2.2) of the Regulations in order for the dividend to be completely sheltered by the 113 Deduction?

Position: (1) General comments, including that a taxpayer is required under 230(1) to maintain records and books of account, which may be inspected, audited, or examined, pursuant to s. 231(1)(a) of the Act. (2) General comments.

15 May 2019 IFA Roundtable Q. 10, 2019-0798781C6 - Foreign Affiliate Earnings and Foreign Transfer Pricing Adjustments

Unedited CRA Tags
247(2), 95(1), definition of "earnings" and "net earnings" under Reg. 5907(1); Reg. 5907(2)
MAP settlement resulted in reduction in "earnings" - (a)(i) under Reg. 5907(1) but in increase under Reg. 5907(2)(j)
MAP Settlement reduced net earnings when foreign country reassessed to implement income reduction

Principal Issues: i) Where a corresponding adjustment under foreign tax law results in a reassessment of taxable income and income taxes payable of a foreign affiliate by a foreign tax authority, would there be a re-computation of earnings and net earnings of the foreign affiliate for the relevant taxation years under subparagraph 5907(1)(a)(i) of the Regulations? ii) Also, would the income retained but not included in computing the earnings of the foreign affiliate as a result of the corresponding adjustment result in an addition to the earnings of the foreign affiliate under paragraph 5907(2)(f) of the Regulations for the relevant taxation years?

Position: In the factual circumstances provided, i) yes and ii) yes.

Reasons: i) The corresponding adjustment and the resulting reassessment by the foreign tax authority changes the amount of income or profit from active business of the foreign affiliate computed in accordance with the foreign tax law and the income taxes paid by the foreign affiliate in respect of that income or profit for the reassessed taxation years. ii) The income realized and retained by the foreign affiliate, but excluded from its income for foreign income tax purposes as a result of the corresponding adjustment by the foreign tax authority, would be "revenue, income, or profit" derived by the foreign affiliate for purposes of paragraph 5907(2)(f) of the Regulations.