Income Tax Severed Letters - 2023-03-08

Technical Interpretation - External

21 November 2022 External T.I. 2022-0955541E5 - Medical expense tax credit - eXciteOSA

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(m); 5700(z.2) of the Regulations

Principal Issues: Whether the exciteOSA device is an eligible device for purposes of the METC?

Position: Likely yes, if prescribed by a medical practitioner as an electrotherapy device used by a person with a medical condition.

Reasons: The device appears to be an electrotherapy device designed to be used by an individual with a medical condition, sleep apnea, as contemplated by subsection 5700(z.2) of the Regulations.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

16 January 2023 Internal T.I. 2020-0851561I7 F - SSUC/CEWS -– rémunération admissible et rémunérati

Unedited CRA Tags
5, 6(3), 125.7(1), 125.7(2), 153(1)
eligible remuneration for each qualifying period includes additions for vacation and sick leave, but excludes taxable benefits
baseline remuneration includes additions for vacation and sick leave pay, and security allowances

Principales Questions: 1. Dans une situation donnée, est-ce qu’une indemnité de congés annuels obligatoires, de jours fériés chômés et de congés de maladie qui est ajoutée par l’employeur au salaire ou traitement de base compris sur chaque chèque de paie d’un employé est une rémunération admissible versée à un employé admissible par une entité admissible et une rémunération de base aux fins de la SSUC? / In a given situation, whether an allowance for compulsory annual vacation pay, statutory holiday pay and sick leave pay added by the employer to the base salary or wages on every pay check of an employee qualifies as eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee by a qualifying entity and a baseline remuneration for the purposes of the CEWS.
2. Dans une situation donnée, est-ce qu’une allocation de sécurité est une rémunération admissible versée à un employé admissible par une entité admissible et une rémunération de base aux fins de la SSUC? / In a given situation, whether a security allowance qualifies as eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee by a qualifying entity and a baseline remuneration for the purposes of the CEWS.
3. Est-ce que la valeur d’un avantage imposable découlant d’un régime d’assurance collective est une rémunération admissible versée à un employé admissible par une entité admissible aux fins de la SSUC? / Whether the value of a taxable benefit from a private group insurance plan is eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee by a qualifying entity for the purposes of the CEWS.

Position Adoptée: 1. Oui, l’indemnité est une rémunération admissible versée à un employé admissible par une entité admissible et une rémunération de base aux fins de la SSUC. / Yes, the allowance qualifies as eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee by a qualifying entity and a baseline remuneration for the purposes of the CEWS.
2. Aucune. / None.
3. Non / No.

Raisons: 1. Dans la situation donnée, nous considérons pour les fins de la SSUC que l’entité admissible a versé cette indemnité à un employé admissible à l’égard de la même semaine que l’est le salaire ou le traitement s’y rapportant. / In the given situation, for purposes of the CEWS, we consider that the qualifying entity has paid the allowance to the eligible employee in respect of the same week that the salary and wages relating thereto were paid.
2. Question de fait. / Question of fact.
3. La valeur d’un avantage imposable découlant d’un régime d’assurance collective n’est pas une rémunération admissible versée à un employé admissible par une entité admissible aux fins du calcul de la SSUC. / The value of a taxable benefit from a private group insurance plan is not an eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee by a qualifying entity for the purposes of the CEWS.

16 December 2019 Internal T.I. 2019-0816101I7 - Loans from LTD Partnerships to LTD Partner

Unedited CRA Tags
96(2.2)(c)
validity of loan by Ontario LP to limited partner turns on Ontario law
whether loans from Ontario LP to limited partner are distributions turns on whether Ontario statutory law overrides common law
loan by a partnership to partner is a distribution at common law
reference is made to provincial law only where necessary

Principal Issues: 1. Whether paragraph 96(2.2)(c) allows a limited partnership to make loans to a limited partner? 2. If not, how would the ITA and the provincial laws work together?

Position: 1. No. 2. Validity of loans determined based on the laws of the Province of Ontario.

Reasons: 1. and 2, sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Interpretation Act, case law and previous positions.