Search - consideration

B-107 "Investment Plans (Including Segregated Funds of an Insurer) and the HST" April 2013-- summary under Paragraph A(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 217- Qualifying Consideration- Element A- Paragraph A(b) Deemed residence of non-residents in non-participating province unless s. 225 election (Part 13) As described in section 225.4 of the Act, unless an SLFI investment plan elects to exclude non-resident unit holders from the calculation of its provincial attribution percentage for a participating province, the following rules apply: When an SLFI investment plan calculates its provincial attribution percentage for a participating province and it knows that certain units are held by non-residents of Canada, these units are deemed to be held by unit holders resident in Canada but not resident in a participating province (as described in paragraph 225.4(3)(a) for a stratified investment plan, paragraph 225.4(4)(a) for a non-stratified investment plan, paragraph 225.4(5)(a) for a private investment plan or a pension entity of a pension plan). ... As a result, any outlay made, or expense incurred, by the investment plan in respect of these units will relate to the investment plan's Canadian activity for the purposes of calculating the amount of an external charge or qualifying consideration as defined in section 217 of the Act (under paragraphs 225.4(3)(c) for stratified investment plan, 225.4(4)(c) for non-stratified investment plans and 225.4(5)(c) for a private investment plan or pension entity of a pension plan). Therefore, in accordance with section 218.01 of the Act, the investment plan will be required to self-assess the GST or the federal part of the HST under Division IV of the Act for taxable amounts that are imports (i.e., the amount of an external charge or qualifying consideration) that relate to the units deemed to be held by residents of Canada (but not resident in any participating province) under section 225.4 ...

CRA responded: Where the person does not engage staff to perform any of the operator's duties, it is doubtful whether the person would be considered to have the managerial or operational control of the joint venture, subject to consideration of all relevant facts and agreements. ... This would make it doubtful whether the operator actually has managerial or operational control of the joint venture, subject to consideration of all relevant facts and agreements. ... CRA responded: [W]here it can be determined based on consideration of all relevant facts and agreements that independent powers are given to Corporation B and that these powers in fact give Corporation B managerial or operational control of the joint venture, then Corporation B could be considered to be the operator of the joint venture. ...

V, and was subject to GST/HST, CRA stated: … The consideration paid or payable must be directly linked to a supply of a health care service that is in fact rendered by a physician to a particular individual. … … [T]he hospital acquired a right to call upon the physician to attend the hospital during a given time period. ... As consideration for a supply of “property”, the hospital on-call fee is not consideration paid or payable for a supply of a service for GST/HST purposes. … CRA went on to note: If a physician’s only taxable income is generated from hospital on-call fees and these fees do not exceed the small supplier threshold, the physician would qualify as a small supplier and as such not be required to register and charge GST/HST on this fee. ...

This produced respective percentages, with the result that 82% of the consideration could be reasonably allocated to the chiropractic, physiotherapy and acupuncture, thereby being exempt under s. 7 if separately supplied, whereas the 18% of the fixed fee allocable to the massage therapy (if separately supplied) would be taxable. ... Example 3 Similar to Example 2 except that only 8% of the consideration could be reasonably attributed to the massage therapy services. As 92% (substantially all) of the consideration can reasonably be attributed to the services that would be included in ss. 5 to 7.3 of Part II of Sch. ...

In finding that the 60% retained by the Recipient was not consideration for a taxable supply made by it to Mr. ... Thus, the contract terms do not permit a conclusion that the portion of the net revenues retained by the Recipient represented consideration for a supply. ... Thus, the amount divided between the two parties did not represent consideration for a supply and, thus, no portion of the net fees retained by the Recipient is subject to GST/HST. ...

., which states in respect of “Intercorporate Transactions” (in part): … [A]s an administrative concession, Revenue Canada stated that it would not apply the anti-avoidance rule in section 155 to any of the transactions between the various corporations, in order that the transactions could be completed for nil or nominal consideration. ... CRA indicated that it “has no administrative concession in place that limits the application of subsection 155(1),” and noted that after 1991, s. 155(2) was enacted, which now provides a detailed code for exceptions to the application of s. 155(1), so that: For example, if a charity were to make a non-arm’s length supply of real property for no consideration that was exempt by way of section 5 of Part V.I of Schedule V to the ETA, subsection 155(1) would not apply to deem the supply to be made for consideration equal to the fair market value of the property. ...

Income Tax Technical News No. 44 13 April 2011 [archived]-- summary under Paragraph 69(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 69- Subsection 69(1)- Paragraph 69(1)(c) FMV basis in contributed property Is it CRA's position that "where property is transferred to a corporation by a shareholder for no consideration, the corporation will not have any cost base in the property"? CRA responded: In the absence of a specific provision in the Act to the contrary...a corporation that receives property from its shareholder for no consideration has a cost basis for that property equal to its FMV. ...

IT-441 dated November 29, 1979 "Capital Cost Allowance- Certified Feature Productions and Certified Short Productions"-- summary under Disposition Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Disposition "A disposition of the film or tape will be considered to take place where the investor grants to a person or persons the right to distribute or otherwise exploit the film or tape in markets representing most or all of the exploitable value of the film or tape for a fixed amount of consideration or for a guaranteed minimum consideration which can reasonably be considered to be its fair market value. ...

Therefore, where there is a consideration for the sale of a mortgage and a separate consideration for mortgage servicing, sections 138 and 139 of the ETA are not available to characterize the tax status of any servicing fee. ...

IT-113R4 "Benefits to Employees-Stock Options"-- summary under Paragraph 7(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 7- Subsection 7(1)- Paragraph 7(1)(a) 6....The word "issue" means to deliver unissued shares of a corporation, including...for no monetary consideration. Therefore, section 7 applies when an employer corporation agrees to sell or issue, to an employee of the corporation or of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm's length, its own shares, or to sell or have issued those of a corporation with which it does not deal at arm's length, at less than fair market value or for no monetary consideration. ...