Income Tax Severed Letters - 2021-07-28

Ruling

2021 Ruling 2020-0860401R3 - Multi-wing farm split-up butterfly

Unedited CRA Tags
55(1), 55(2), 55(3)(b), 55(3.1), 85(1), 84.1(1), 245

Principal Issues: Whether the exception to subsection 55(2) provided in paragraph 55(3)(b) applies to the Proposed Transactions.

Position: Yes.

Reasons: The conditions have been satisfied and the butterfly denial provisions of subsection 55(3.1) do not apply.

Technical Interpretation - External

12 April 2021 External T.I. 2020-0863701E5 - CEWS - Asset Sale Followed by Amalgamation

Unedited CRA Tags
Subsection 125.7(4.2) and paragraph 87(2)(g.6)
s. 87(2)(g.6) and s. 125.7(4.1) continuity rules can be read together
application of ss. 87(2)(g.6) and s. 125.7(4.1) continuity rules where target business is spun off to Newco subsidiary of purchaser followed by their amalgamation

Principal Issues: Do the continuity rules in subsections 125.7(4.1) and (4.2) apply in conjunction with the continuity rule in paragraph 87(2)(g.6)?

Position: Yes, unless it is reasonable to consider that one of the main purposes of the amalgamation is to cause the new corporation to qualify or increase a payment for the CEWS.

Reasons: Paragraph 87(2)(g.6) applies for the purposes of all of section 125.7. Therefore, based on the specific facts set out in the particular hypothetical scenario provided, Amalco would be deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of Newco when applying subsections 125.7(4.1) and (4.2).

23 February 2021 External T.I. 2020-0861611E5 - Medical expenses

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(i), 118.2(2)(m), Regulation 5700

Principal Issues: Whether the cost of high-fidelity ear plugs are eligible medical expenses for purposes of the METC.

Position: No

Reasons: Legislation

Technical Interpretation - Internal

20 April 2021 Internal T.I. 2020-0843351I7 - Liquid meal replacement products

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(n); 118.3(1)(a.1); 118.3(1.1); ITR section 570

Principal Issues: 1) Whether the cost of a particular liquid meal replacement product that is prescribed for a patient post lung and throat cancer, would be eligible as a medical expense for the purpose of the medical expense tax credit. 2) Whether consuming the particular liquid meal replacement product may be considered "therapy" for the purpose of the disability tax credit.

Position: 1) Question of fact, although unlikely in the present case; we are not aware of liquid meal replacement products that can lawfully be acquired for use by the patient only if prescribed by, or with the intervention of, a medical practitioner. 2) Likely not. Being required to consume a particular meal replacement product seems akin to a dietary regime or restriction.

Reasons: 1) The wording in paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act and section 5701 of the Regulations. 2) The requirements in paragraph 118.3(1)(a.1) and subsection 118.3(1.1) of the Act.