News of Note
Silber – Court of Quebec finds that a stock broker could deduct costs of sponsoring his cycling team from employment income
Email this ContentA commissioned stock broker employed by CIBC Wood Gundy (Silber) founded a team of around 10 professional cyclists, known as "Silber Pro Cycling" and, in 2015 and 2016, paid the team $265,000 and $330,302, respectively, in his capacity of principal team sponsor. The ARQ denied his deduction of the sponsorship expenses under the equivalent of ITA s. 8(1)(f) on the basis that they were not expended by him for the purpose of earning his employment income.
In allowing Silber’s appeal, Richard J noted inter alia that, in return for his sponsorship, Silber obtained exposure for his name and practice in a number of ways including the teams’ name, logo, website name, and both his and his employer’s names being prominently displayed on the cyclists’ clothing.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Silber v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCQ 127 under s. 8(1)(f).
CRA indicates that a used machine acquisition on current account was ineligible for SR&ED credit
The Claimant purchased a used machine which it modified as part of its SR&ED project and which was accepted as being purchased on current account as it was transformed in the prosecution of the SR&ED. The Directorate found that this expenditure was a prescribed expenditure pursuant to Reg. 2902(b)(ii), i.e., the expenditure was in respect of “the acquisition of property that has been used … for any purpose whatever before it was acquired.” It indicated in this regard that the acquisition cost being a current expenditure was not inconsistent with there having been an “acquisition of property.”
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 26 October 2022 Internal T.I. 2021-0915091I7 under Reg. 2902(b)(ii).
Income Tax Severed Letters 15 March 2023
This morning's release of two severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA confirms that there are no ITCs for appliances acquired during the construction of a rental residential complex
CRA confirmed that since appliances and common area furniture and equipment that are acquired in connection with the construction of, say, a residential complex such as an apartment building and which do not become fixtures, will be considered to have been acquired for the purpose of the intended exempt rental of the completed units, no input tax credits will be available. Implicitly, personal property that becomes fixtures will instead be part of the real property that becomes subject to the deemed taxable self-supply under s. 191(3), so that their acquisition prior to such self-supply will generate ITCs.
CRA also summarized the tests it considered should be applied in determining whether, at common law, personal property has become a fixture.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 7 April 2022 CBA Roundtable, Q.3 under ETA s. 191(3) and s. 123(1) – real property.
CRA is considering whether denials of requested GST/HST return adjustments can ground objection rights
Regarding whether, if CRA declines a requested adjustment to a GST/HST return through a denial letter, so that technically there may be no assessment to which the registrant can object, CRA stated:
We are working cross-functionally with Appeals and the GST/HST Audit program to develop new policies and procedures to address this concern.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 7 April 2022 CBA Roundtable, Q.2 under ETA s. 296(1).
CRA indicates that an Appeals Officer can (and may) increase the reassessment under appeal
CRA stated that it has the authority under ETA s. 301(3) (equivalent, although not identical, to ITA s. 165(3)) to further increase a reassessment that has been objected to (for example, if a second valuation prepared for the Appeals Officer produced an even higher valuation) – but indicated that “[a]ny upward adjustment must be approved by the Appeals Officer’s manager or the Chief of Appeals.”
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 7 April 2022 CBA Roundtable, Q.1 under ETA s. 301(3).
CRA has provided its written responses for the 2022 CBA Roundtable
We have prepared summaries of questions posed to CRA at the April 7, 2022 CBA Commodity Tax Roundtable and provided the full text of the CRA written responses.
We have translated 7 more CRA interpretations
We have published a CRA interpretation released last week and a further 6 translations of CRA interpretations released in October of 2003. Their descriptors and links appear below.
These are additions to our set of 2,404 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 19 1/3 years of releases of such items by the Directorate. These translations are subject to our paywall (applicable after the 5th of each month).
| Bundle Date | Translated severed letter | Summaries under | Summary descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-08 | 16 January 2023 Internal T.I. 2020-0851561I7 F - SSUC/CEWS -– rémunération admissible et rémunérati | Income Tax Act - Section 125.7 - Subsection 125.7(1) - Eligible Remuneration | eligible remuneration for each qualifying period includes additions for vacation and sick leave, but excludes taxable benefits |
| Income Tax Act - Section 125.7 - Subsection 125.7(1) - Baseline Remuneration | baseline remuneration includes additions for vacation and sick leave pay, and security allowances | ||
| 2003-10-03 | 23 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0035905 F - REG 4900(3)
Also released under document number 2003-00359050.
|
Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 4900 - Subsection 4900(3) | employee can designate a survivor benefit in the annuity contract |
| 11 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0010375 F - MONTANT RECU D'UN ORDRE RELIGIEUX
Also released under document number 2003-00103750.
|
Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(3) | amount paid to a member departing a religious order | |
| 11 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0029145 F - CREDIT D'IMPOT POUR DON
Also released under document number 2003-00291450.
|
Income Tax Act - Section 118.1 - Subsection 118.1(1) - Total Charitable Gifts | meaning of gift under Quebec civil law | |
| 11 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0032975 F - DON A UN PETIT-FILS HANDICAPE
Also released under document number 2003-00329750.
|
Income Tax Act - Section 74.1 - Subsection 74.1(2) | s. 74.1(2) applies irrespective of child’s physical or mental condition | |
| 15 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0033405 F - CONVENTION DE RETRAITE INTERETS COURUS
Also released under document number 2003-00334050.
|
Income Tax Act - Section 207.5 - Subsection 207.5(1) - Refundable Tax - Paragraph (b) | computation of refundable tax includes income under application of s. 12(9) to stripped coupons | |
| 15 September 2003 External T.I. 2003-0034195 F - ALLOCATION DE RETRAITE
Also released under document number 2003-00341950.
|
Income Tax Act - Section 60 - Paragraph 60(j.1) | employee purchase of back years of service with a related employer permitted | |
| General Concepts - Agency | common law Crown agency test applied for determining whether current and previous employers were related employers |
CRA confirms that eligible remuneration for CEWS purposes does not include taxable benefits
CRA essentially confirmed its position in 2020-0856411I7 F that where mandatory vacation, statutory holiday and sick leave pay provided for in the various collective agreements in the Quebec construction industry is added by the employer (an eligible entity) to the basic salary or wages included in each pay cheque of an eligible employee, it will consider that the eligible entity has paid that additional amount to the eligible employee in respect of the same week as the related salary or wages are paid, so as to be included in determining the CEWS entitlement of that employer for that week.
It now added that baseline remuneration is determined on the same basis for CEWS purposes, and that taxable benefits (here, group insurance plan benefits) were not to be included given that “[o]nly eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee is included in computing the CEWS.”
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 16 January 2023 Internal T.I. 2020-0851561I7 F under s. 125.7(1) – eligible remuneration, and baseline remuneration.
Ossai – Federal Court sets aside a CRA decision on the basis that it was unintelligible
Although the facts are more intricate, they essentially involved the taxpayer, in early 2021, promptly withdrawing $29,000 from his TFSA when he discovered (before being so notified by CRA) that he had over-contributed by $20,000 – then shortly thereafter, contributing a further $6,000 to his TFSA, not realizing that under the “excess TFSA amount” definition, such contributions were not offset by his “excess” TFSA withdrawal earlier in the year of $9,000 because it is only a prior, not a current, year’s withdrawals that restore contribution room. He did not withdraw the excess contributions created by these further contributions until a number of months after CRA had assessed him in 2021 for his $20,000 overcontribution. CRA denied his request for relief under s. 207.06(1) on the basis that the removal of the excess contributions did not occur within a reasonable time frame – but provided no explanation as to why the $9,000 excess withdrawal in 2021 did not offset the further 2021 contributions.
Aylen J found that, in the absence of any such explanation, the CRA adverse decision was “unintelligible and lack[ed] justification and transparency.” The decision was set aside and remitted for re-determination by a different CRA officer.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Ossai v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 313 under s. 207.06(1).