News of Note
CRA discusses the application of the SAM formula to a self-constructed MURC
Email this ContentA selected listed financial institution (SLFI), which is the builder of a multiple unit residential complex (MURC) situated in Ontario and a MURC situated in a non-participating province, is deemed to have made and received a taxable supply by way of sale of those MURCs around the time of substantial completion and occupancy by the first tenant. The special attribution method (SAM) formula in ETA s. 225.2(2) for computing the SLFI tax reads as follows:
[(A - B) x C x (D / E)] - F + G
where in, simplistic terms, A-B is the federal GST paid (A) minus ITCs claimed (B), the middle part of the formula grosses this net federal tax up to a blended HST rate based on the location of the stakeholders in the SLFI, and the F and G components make technical adjustments.
CRA indicated:
- The SLFI is not entitled to the Ontario new residential rental property (NRRP) rebate, by virtue of the prohibition in s. 263.01(1) against paying a rebate of provincial HST to a SLFI.
- The federal GST on the self-supply pursuant to s. 191(3) is included in Element A, whereas the Ontario HST is included in Element F.
- Regarding Element G (which can reflect negative amounts) there would be a negative amount equal to the federal NRRP rebate pursuant to G2(iii) of the formula in s. 46(a) of the SLFI Regulations.
CRA did not provide any numerical example, so I will make one up to illustrate my understanding (or misunderstanding). A REIT which is a SLFI with a blended HST rate of 10%, incurs $5 million of GST and $8 million of Ontario HST on its substantial completion of a (directly held) Ontario apartment building, and it has no federal NRRP rebate because the pro rata value of each unit is over $450,000 and excavation commenced before 2023. Its federal GST is grossed up to $10 million from which it subtracts its Ontario HST of $8 million, so that its net tax insofar as this project is concerned is $2 million. To vary the example, if it qualified for a full federal NRRP rebate of $5 million, it would have a net tax refund of $3 million
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 16 May 2024 GST/HST Interpretation 224829 under ETA s. 225.2(2).
We have translated over 3,000 severed letters
We have translated a further 6 CRA interpretations released in May of 2001. Their descriptors and links appear below.
These are additions to our set of 3,005 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 23 ½ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001-05-25 | 10 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0066107 F - TABLE RONDE - QUESTION 32 | Income Tax Act - Section 69 - Subsection 69(1) - Paragraph 69(1)(b) | absence of cost step-up to s. 69(1)(b) transferee does not produce a capital gain on subsequent disposition due to such gain being recapture pursuant to s. 13(7)(e)(iii) |
| Income Tax Act - Section 39 - Subsection 39(1) - Paragraph 39(1)(a) | parenthetical exclusion prevents double taxation to a NAL transferee otherwise arising from the deemed high capital cost under s. 13(7)(e)(iii) but with no ACB step-up under s. 69(1)(b) | ||
| 10 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0065727 F - AVANTAGE - FONCTIONNEMENT AUTOMOBILE | Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(1) - Paragraph 6(1)(l) | s. 6(1)(l) can include a benefit relating to the operation of an automobile in the income of an employee of a member of a partnership | |
| Income Tax Act - Section 12 - Subsection 12(1) - Paragraph 12(1)(y) | unlike standby benefit, operating benefit for an employee of a partnership member is addressed by s. 6(1)(l) | ||
| 10 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0066047 F - CRITERES RÉSIDENCES D'ACCUEIL | Income Tax Act - Section 81 - Subsection 81(1) - Paragraph 81(1)(h) | taxpayer must ordinarily reside at the place as a principal residence | |
| 10 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0066067 F - SOCIÉTÉ DE PERSONNES - PARTAGE REVENU | Income Tax Act - Section 53 - Subsection 53(2) - Paragraph 53(2)(c) - Subparagraph 53(2)(c)(v) | salary paid to partners is treated as drawings and is an ACB deduction rather than an income deduction | |
| Income Tax Act - Section 96 - Subsection 96(1) - Paragraph 96(1)(f) | partner salaries are non-deductible | ||
| 14 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0065687 F - VENTE CREANCE A ESCOMPTE | Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Disposition - Paragraph (b) - Subparagraph (b)(i) | blended monthly payments of interest and principal received pursuant to a mortgage acquired at a discount each gave rise to a capital gain | |
| Income Tax Act - Section 43 - Subsection 43(1) | apportioned ACB of discounted mortgage that is disposed of with each blended payment is determined by apportioning the discount | ||
| Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Computation of Profit | holder on income account of a mortgage can choose to recognize the discount only after he has recovered his purchase price through the blended principal payments | ||
| Income Tax Act - Section 20 - Subsection 20(14) | application of s. 20(14) to acquisition of mortgage | ||
| 10 May 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0065697 F - SOCIÉTÉ EXERCANT UNE PROFESSION LIBERALE | General Concepts - Illegality | where profession is carried on in a corporation contrary to the regulatory requirements, the corporate income is earned by the professional | |
| Income Tax Act - Section 9 - Nature of Income | income earned by a professional corporation contrary to the professional rules is personal income of the professional |
CILI – Court of Quebec finds that the satisfaction of a resolutory sales condition nullified the original sale so that reconveyance of the realty to the vendor was not a supply
Two individuals, who wished to acquire a condo unit in a building (“265”) which was still under construction by the taxpayer (“CILI”), agreed with CILI to acquire another unit in an already completed building (“260”) and move there on condition that, when the 265 unit became available, they would acquire the 265 unit at no loss, if a purchaser had not been found for the 260 unit by a specified date. When that date arrived, and the 260 unit had not yet been sold, CILI, and the two individuals, entered into a “deed of retrocession” pursuant to which the original sale was annulled, the purchase price returned to them, and they acquired the 265 unit from CILI.
CILI also entered into a somewhat similar transaction with the son of its principal. In order to meet a bank-imposed sales target, CILI sold the development’s model condo suite to him for rental by him back to it, on the condition that CILI would take back the unit from him once a third-party purchaser had been secured. When this “resolutory” condition was satisfied, the unit was returned to CILI pursuant to a deed or retrocession, and the purchase price refunded.
On both sales, CILI collected the applicable QST, refunded such QST on the retrocession, and claimed a credit for such refunded tax pursuant to the Quebec equivalent of ETA s. 232, which the ARQ refused on the grounds that the retrocessions represented second taxable supplies of the two units, rather than evidencing annulments of the previous sales.
Before allowing CILI’s appeal, Fournier JCQ found that under the Quebec Civil Code:
A resolutory condition has the effect of destroying the contractual link existing between the parties by extinguishing it as if it had never existed. …
Thus, the return of the unit in each case was to reflect that the original taxable supply was nullified, rather than representing a further taxable supply, so that the application of the s. 332 equivalent was confirmed.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Corporation immobilière des Laurentides Inc. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2024 QCCQ 5297 under ETA s. 232(1).
CRA has confirmed that prior SR&ED claims for non-statute-barred years can be amended to reflect excluded loans
In response to CAE, effective for loans made after 2019, “excluded loans” were excluded from “government assistance” as defined in s. 127(9) for ITC purposes and from s. 12(1)(x) receipts and governmental assistance under s. 13(7.1). Simplistically, an excluded loan is a government-sourced loan which must be non-forgivable and have reasonable repayment terms, but which otherwise can have non-commercial terms, such as a low interest rate.
CRA representatives confirmed that taxpayers impacted by the change in the s. 127(9) definition of government assistance may submit amended tax returns with their revised SR&ED forms for the years affected even where their SR&ED reporting deadline has passed, provided that the taxation year is not statute-barred.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of EY, “Concessional loans – Claimants may amend prior SR&ED claims for taxation years that are not statute-barred,” Tax Alert 2024 No. 54, 15 November 2024 under s. 127(9) – government assistance.
CRA treats the conversion of a Delaware corporation to an Iowa LLC as the continuation of the same entity
A Delaware corporation was converted into an Iowa limited liability company pursuant to provisions in the applicable statutes that contemplated that the converted entity was the same entity as the converted corporation. The Directorate indicated that since both companies were corporations for ITA purposes, it would rely on the foreign company law, which treated the conversion as not entailing the converted company as ceasing to exist and to instead be continued, so that it would regard the Iowa LLC as the same entity as the Delaware corporation.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 30 July 2024 Internal T.I. 2024-1019041I7 under s. 248(1) - disposition.
CRA indicates that an HBP balance is not zeroed through a contribution to repay the balance until the applicable return designation is made
As part of the rules for allowing an individual to participate in a home buyers’ plan (HBP) in more than one calendar year, individuals can have a fresh participation period in which they can make a further HBP withdrawal from their RRSP if they have contributed amounts to their RRSP that are designated to be non-deductible HBP repayments, so as to reduce their “HBP balance” to nil. In particular, in order for a withdrawal from their RRSP to qualify as a “regular eligible amount,” para. (i) of the definition thereof requires the individual’s HBP balance at the beginning of the withdrawal year be nil.
An individual, who had an HBP balance of $5,000 at the beginning of Year 1, contributed $5,000 to his RRSP on May 7 of that year to repay that HBP balance. On March 25 of Year 2, when filing his T1 return for Year 1, he designated (on Sched. 7 to the return) that contribution as an HBP repayment for Year 1.
CRA indicated that it was only on the return filing date when he made such designation that his HBP balance as at the beginning of Year 2 was reduced to nil, so that he was required to wait until that date before being again able to participate in the HBP.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 10 October 2024 APFF Financial Strategies & Instruments Roundtable, Q.11 under s. 146.01(1) – HBP balance.
CRA confirms that the ACB increase under s. 53(1)(e)(vi) for a negative ACB gain does not occur until immediately after rather than at the partnership year end
2009-0349911E5 dealt with a limited partnership (“LP”) which, in February 2008, realized a capital gain, of which $100,000 was allocable to a limited partner, whose interest had an ACB at the beginning of the (calendar) 2008 fiscal period of LP of $10,000. $100,000 was withdrawn by the limited partner in March 2008, producing a negative ACB gain of $90,000. CRA indicated that this negative ACB gain was added back to that negative ACB, so as to increase it to nil “as at December 31, 2008”, and that the capital gain allocated to the limited partner increased the ACB of its interest to $100,000 on January 1, 2009.
When now asked about this, CRA effectively acknowledged that the quoted date of the ACB increase pursuant to s. 53(1)(e)(vi) was incorrect, and that “the addition of $90,000 under subparagraph 53(1)(e)(vi) should be made on January 1, 2009.” (Otherwise, there presumably would be circularity issues, since the negative ACB gain under s. 40(3.1) is triggered as at the fiscal period year end.)
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 5 August 2024 External T.I. 2024-1031811E5 under s. 53(1)(e)(vi).
CRA confirms that where both ss. 107(2) and 148(7) apply to a personal trust’s distribution of a life insurance policy in satisfaction of capital interest, s. 107(2) prevails over s. 148(7)
In 2023-0990531C6, CRA indicated that, where a life insurance policy is distributed by a personal trust in satisfaction of an income interest in the trust, there would be a disposition of that interest and of the policy at FMV, irrespective of which of s. 106(3) or 107(2) applied. CRA confirmed that this did not call into question its earlier positions in inter alia 2011-0391781E5 that where an interest in a life insurance policy held by a personal trust is distributed to a resident beneficiary in full or partial satisfaction of the beneficiary's capital interest, s. 107(2) (assuming its conditions were satisfied) would prevail over s. 148(7), so that s. 107(2) rollover treatment would apply.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 10 October 2024 APFF Financial Strategies & Instruments Roundtable, Q.10 under s. 148(7).
Income Tax Severed Letters 13 November 2024
This morning's release of three severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA notes that building a secondary unit to access the multigenerational home renovation credit caused that portion of the building to no longer be the taxpayer’s principal residence
CRA noted that the construction of a secondary unit within the taxpayer’s home so as to qualify for the multigenerational home renovation tax credit would thereby preclude the taxpayer from treating the whole home as his or her principal residence. It further indicated that subsequently selling the secondary unit to the qualifying-relation occupants would not generally result in loss of the credit.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 10 October 2024 APFF Financial Strategies & Instruments Roundtable, Q.9 under s. 122.92(1) – qualifying relation, s. 252(2)(g), s. 54 – principal residence, and s. 122.92(1) – eligible individual.