Income Tax Severed Letters - 2021-09-08

Ruling

2021 Ruling 2021-0879931R3 - Supplemental ruling

Unedited CRA Tags
248(1) "salary deferral arrangement", 147.1(8)

Principal Issues: Supplemental ruling in respect of our rulings letter for 2020-085832 regarding whether the proposed SERP will be an SDA.

Position: Paragraph 20 is revised to incorporate the new wording.

Reasons: The revisions do not impact the original ruling.

Technical Interpretation - External

19 July 2021 External T.I. 2020-0869172E5 - Reserve for impaired loans

Unedited CRA Tags
20(1)(l)

Principal Issues: Whether the loan loss allowance computed under IFRS 9 can be considered as a taxpayer’s reserve or allowance for impairment in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for the calculation of the deduction in subparagraph 20(1)(l)(ii) of the Act?

Position: Question of fact.

Reasons: Each loan must be specifically identified as being impaired and that impairment must be measurable on a loan by loan basis.

1 June 2021 External T.I. 2020-0865201E5 F - Sale of property for POD less than FMV

Unedited CRA Tags
15(1), 56(2), 69(1)(b), 251(1)(c)
sale of 2 properties by 50-50 corp at a knowing undervalue to the respective shareholders’ own corporations likely was non-arm’s length
sale of 2 properties by 50-50 corp at a knowing undervalue to the respective shareholders’ own corporations could engage s. 56(2)

Principal Issues: A corporation (Opco) is controlled by two individual shareholders (X and Y). Each of X and Y is the sole shareholder of another corporation. Opco builds condominiums and X and Y came to an agreement to the effect that Opco would sell one condominium unit to each corporation for POD that is less than the FMV of the condominiums units. 1) Whether subsection 69(1)(b) applies to Opco on the sale of the condominiums. 2) Should the value of the benefit be included in the income of X and Y?

Position: 1) Question of fact. 2) Since all the conditions in subsection 56(2) are met, a benefit may be included in the income of X and Y, the shareholders of Opco.

Reasons: 1) It is a question of fact whether persons not related to each other are, at a particular time, dealing with each other at arm’s length. 2) If the condominiums have been sold by Opco to X and Y instead of their respective corporation, a benefit under subsection 15(1) would be included in the income of X and Y respectively. Accordingly, since all the conditions of subsections 56(2) are met, a benefit may be included in the income of X and Y.