News of Note
We have translated 6 more CRA interpretations
Email this ContentWe have translated a further 6 CRA interpretations released in November and October of 2001. Their descriptors and links appear below.
These are additions to our set of 2,858 full-text translations of French-language Technical Interpretation and Roundtable items (plus some ruling letters) of the Income Tax Rulings Directorate, which covers all of the last 22 2/3 years of releases of such items by the Directorate. These translations are subject to our paywall (applicable after the 5th of each month).
CRA indicates that the settlor can be one of three trustees of an alter ego trust without engaging s. 75(2)
The trust deed for an alter ego trust provided that no capital distributions, including any capital gains, could be made while the settlor (who also was a trustee) was alive, that all decisions were by a majority vote of the three trustees, and did not include any provision granting the settlor the power to direct the future distributions that were to be made following the settlor’s death.
CRA indicated that, in general, these provisions did not engage s. 75(2). In particular, the settlor had no capital interest in the trust, and the settlor being one of the trustees acting by majority vote was permissible. However, s. 75(2) could still apply where the trust deed expressly required the settlor’s consent or direction with respect to any decision made by the trustees, including where decisions were made by the majority of trustees provided that that settlor-trustee was one of that majority.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.7 under s. 75(2).
CRA indicates that the activity test in s. s. 84.1(2.31)(f)(ii) or 84.1(2.32)(g)(ii) can be met by successive children and regarding only one out of multiple businesses
One of the requirements under the inter-generational transfer rules in proposed s. 84.1(2.31) (dealing with an immediate intergenerational business transfer) or proposed s. 84.1(2.32) (dealing with gradual intergenerational business transfers) is that the child, or at least one member of the group of children, be actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis within the meaning of s. 120.4(1.1)(a) in the relevant business of a subject corporation or in relevant group entities. This condition (the “activity threshold”) must be satisfied from the time of the disposition of the subject shares by the parent until 36 months later in the case of an immediate intergenerational business transfer, or until 60 months later in the case of a gradual intergenerational business transfer.
CRA indicated regarding this activity threshold test (in s. 84.1(2.31)(f)(ii) or 84.1(2.32)(g)(ii)):
- Assuming that a group of children are the indirect purchasers of the subject shares, it need not be the same individual amongst them who meets the activity threshold throughout the 36 or 60 month period (i.e., in a sense, they can take turns).
- Consistent with the stated purpose of ensuring the continued involvement of the taxpayer’s children in the acquired business, any previous engagement or involvement by a child prior to the disposition of the subject shares by the parent to the purchaser corporation would not count for purposes of satisfying the test.
- Where there are multiple businesses being carried on by several different corporations, a child need only meet the activity threshold in any relevant business of a subject corporation or relevant group entity in relation to that subject corporation.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.6 under s. 84.1(2.31)(f)(ii).
CRA confirms that the replacement of an executor due to death or inability does not result in a loss restriction event
CRA confirmed the position in IT-302R3 (archived) that where the executor, administrator, or trustee of an estate is replaced as a result of that person’s death or inability to fulfill their function, control of a corporation held by the estate would not be acquired solely as a result of that replacement. This position is not conditional on the replacement trustee being related or otherwise connected to the executor, administrator or trustee being replaced.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.4 under s. 251.2(2)(a).
CRA indicates that an individual exercising power of attorney for a controlling incapacitated shareholder does not have de jure control of the corporation
CRA confirmed 2012-0454111C6 in finding that a power of attorney under which a designated attorney exercises the voting rights of a controlling shareholder of a corporation as a consequence of the incapacity of that shareholder would not constitute (in contrast to a unanimous shareholders agreement) an external document that has to be taken into consideration in determining the de jure control of the corporation - so that the grant or exercise of such a power of attorney would not give rise to a loss restriction event.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.3 under s. 251.2(2)(a).
CRA relies on s. 248(28) to avoid double taxation under s. 15(1) and s. 5
A corporation pays wages to an individual employee who is not a shareholder but does not deal at arm’s length with a shareholder and a portion of the wages is subsequently determined to be unreasonable pursuant to s. 67. CRA indicated that the overpayment would not be included in the individual’s income under s. 15(1) because the benefit had not been conferred on the individual in a capacity of shareholder. There also would be no deemed inclusion under s. 15(1.4)(c) because the same amount had been included in the individual’s employment income.
Where such non-arm’s length employee was also a shareholder, although the overpayment would otherwise be income under s. 15(1), s. 248(28) would exclude the application of s. 15(1), so that there was no double taxation. (This seems like a departure from the traditional approach of determining whether a benefit was received qua employee or qua shareholder, and then only applying the more applicable provision.) Again, s. 15(1.4)(c) would not apply because of the s. 5 inclusion.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.2 under s. 15(1).
CRA indicates that a contribution to a spousal trust after the spouse’s death would not cause it to cease to be a spousal trust or affect the deemed disposition dates for its property
We have published the questions which were posed, and summaries of the preliminary oral responses given, at the 2024 STEP CRA Roundtable.
In Q.1, CRA indicated that a contribution to a spousal or common-law partner trust (a “spousal trust”), made after the death of the spouse beneficiary, by a person other than the individual who had settled the trust, would not cause it to cease to be a spousal trust. In addition, the contribution would not have any effect on the timing of the deemed disposition of all the capital property of the trust: on the death of the spouse beneficiary (which had already occurred); and every 21 years thereafter pursuant to s. 104(4)(b)(iii) or (c).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 4 June 2024 STEP Roundtable, Q.1 under s. 104(4)(a).
Income Tax Severed Letters 5 June 2024
This morning's release of six severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA rules on using an in-house re-circulating daylight loan to fund a loss-shifting transaction
CRA ruled on routine transactions between two Lossco subsidiaries and one Profitco subsidiary of an immediate Canadian parent company involving Lossco loans to the Profitco and Profitco subscriptions for Lossco cumulative preferred shares. The ruling contemplated that the daylight loan to the immediate parent could be in a somewhat small amount borrowed from a group company, with the funds used in setting up the loss shifting structure moved in a circle up to five times. Using a re-circulating in-house daylight loan would not only likely be cheaper and more expedient, but also could make it easier to give the representation that the daylight loan amount was consistent with that parent’s borrowing capacity.
The rulings included that Profitco could use any non-capital loss arising from these transactions for carryback (for up to 3 years) back to a prior year.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 2023 Ruling 2023-0964601R3 under s. 111(1)(a).
Entrepôt Frigorifique – Tax Court of Canada finds no obligation of a registrant claiming ITCs to perform supplementary due diligence on its suppliers
The appellant (Frigo) was assessed beyond the normal four-year ETA assessment period to deny input tax credits (ITCs) for GST charged to it by placement agencies though which Frigo had been supplied with temporary workers. The Crown took the position that the agencies which, although registered for GST purposes, had not remitted the GST collected by them from Frigo, were not the actual suppliers of the temporary workers, and that Frigo was complicit in their stratagem to misappropriate GST; and, in particular, alleged that Frigo had sufficient information to be put on guard so that it should have engaged in supplementary inquiries (rather than merely having checked that they had valid GST registrations) before paying the placement agencies’ invoices.
In rejecting this position, Boyle J stated:
I cannot interpret the ETA and the Regulations as imposing an undeclared obligation on every Canadian business purchasing commercial supplies to exercise additional due diligence with respect to each of its duly registered suppliers, which would include, as claims the respondent in this case, the examination of the physical establishment of the new supplier, its agreements with its personnel, its intention to use subcontractors to carry out the supply, and more — all without even being able to know if the duly registered and verified supplier is in arrears in the payment of GST collected, employee withholding taxes or provincial sales tax, or is otherwise not complying with its tax obligations.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Entrepôt Frigorifique International Inc. v. The King, 2024 CCI 78 under ETA s. 169(4).