Search - considered

In the event that, without being equivalent, the hourly rate of a volunteer firefighter is comparable to that of a regular firefighter, we are of the view that the amount paid would not be considered "minimal". As a result, the firefighter in this situation would not be considered to be acting as a volunteer for the purposes of subsection 81(4) and section 118.06. ... Thus, an individual who is required to work a minimum number of hours in a given period of time, except for a very limited number of hours, is generally not considered to be a volunteer firefighter for the purposes of subsection 81(4) and section 118.06. ...

For various of the scenarios considered, CCRA indicated that the changes affected the insurance contract and not the plan. In another scenario, where there were separate contracts of insurance for employees in each province but the terms province-to-province were essentially the same, CCRA considered there to be one plan, so that there would not be a loss of continuity when an employee moved provinces. CCRA also stated [T]wo separate plans could co-exist to the extent that both: the plans are administered separately; the premium rate is determined separately for each plan; the amount of benefits, premium rates, terms of enrolment and other conditions of each plan do not depend on the existence of the other plan; there is no cross-funding between the two plans, i.e., the premiums or returns from one plan should not be used to fund the other plan; for example, if funds were already accumulated in the old plan and used to fund the new plan, then the new plan would be considered a continuation of the old plan; the administration of the plans should indicate that each plan can be considered separate from the other. ...

Are the parents considered to be specified beneficiaries of the trust under s. ... Thus, the parents would be considered to be beneficially interested in the trust and, consequently, they would satisfy the first condition of subparagraph (c.1)(ii) of the definition of "principal residence" in section 54. In addition, where a trust grants a person a right to inhabit a housing unit, owned by the trust, the person would be considered to have a beneficial interest in the trust. ...

Are the parents considered to be specified beneficiaries of the trust under s. ... Thus, the parents would be considered to be beneficially interested in the trust and, consequently, they would satisfy the first condition of subparagraph (c.1)(ii) of the definition of "principal residence" in section 54. In addition, where a trust grants a person a right to inhabit a housing unit, owned by the trust, the person would be considered to have a beneficial interest in the trust. ...

Y are considered, for the purposes of the definition of "qualified farm property" in subsection 110.6(1), to be the fathers of their children (natural, adopted or dependent before the age of 19), grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as the spouses or common-law partners of those persons. However, they are not considered to be the father of the brothers and sisters of the spouses or common-law partners of their children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren. ... Y will not be considered to be the father of his son's wife's sister, notwithstanding the fact that that person is considered to be his son's sister pursuant to paragraph 252(2)(c). ...

21 February 2012 External T.I. 2011-0417471E5 F- Changement d'usage- paragraphe 45(3)-- summary under Property Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Property immovable (including a duplex used 2 different ways) is considered a single property unless subdivided A taxpayer inhabited as a principal residence a unit of a taxpayer-owned duplex and integrates that unit, through major renovations, with the other unit in the duplex that was, before those renovations, rented to third parties. CRA indicated that “An immovable is normally considered to be a single property unless it is legally subdivided into two or more separate properties,” so that, in this situation, the partial change-in-use rule in s. 45(1)(c) would be considered to apply. ...

Would LP1, LP2 and LP3 be considered to be dealing at arm’s length with Canco for purposes of Art. 11, subpara. 3 (c) of the Treaty? ... Pursuant to the Interpretative Protocol, whether persons are considered to be dealing at arm's length with each other… is determined by subsection 251(1).... [W]e will consider GP Co to control Holdco and Canco. … Folio S1-F5-C1 [states] “when a partner is not in a position to control a partnership and that partner has little or no say in directing the operations of the partnership, it is generally recognized that the partner is dealing at arm's length with the partnership.” … By analogy, you reason that a partner who is considered to be dealing at arm’s length with a partnership should also be considered to be dealing at arm’s length with the corporation controlled by the partnership. ...

Issue 1 Would LP2 and LP3 be considered to have “indirect control” over the voting power of Holdco, the shares of which are held by UK LP, for purposes of Art. 10, subpara. 2(a)? Issue 2 Would LP1 and LP3 be considered to own indirectly shares of Holdco for purposes of Art. 10, para. 3? ... …LP1 and LP3 will be considered to own indirectly the shares of Holdco and accordingly Holdco’s capital in proportion to their partnership interests in UK LP. ...

After noting that under the jurisprudence, “for an expense to have been incurred for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of an accumulation of petroleum or natural gas, there would have to be a connection between that expense and the actual exploration work,” CRA turned to the specific expenses and stated: Capacity Payments would generally be considered to satisfy the Purpose Test [in para. (f)] on the basis that they are incurred in order to secure access to and explore the Property and therefore are connected to the actual exploration work. … Ongoing consultations expenses similar to those described above would appear to be in respect of the exploration process only and therefore would generally be considered to be CEE. … [T]argeted environmental assessments, such as biodiversity and species at risk, that are conducted in conjunction with exploration activities would generally be considered to be CEE. … [E]xpenses for legally documenting arrangements agreed to with the leaders of a community during community consultations would generally be considered to meet the Purpose Test and therefore would be considered to be CEE, to the extent that such legal documentation relates to the exploration process.... ...

For the purposes of determining that there has been a pro rata distribution of each of the three-types-of property: following the allocation of current liabilities to each cash or near-cash property on a pro rata basis, any remaining net FMV of any accounts receivable (including HST/GST/QST receivables and accounts receivable owing from non-arm’s length persons), inventories and prepaid expenses of Canadian DC will be reclassified as business property and excluded from the cash or near-cash property, to the extent that such property will be collected, sold or used in the ordinary course of the business to which such property relates; amounts receivable by Canadian DC under the cash pooling arrangement will be considered cash or near-cash property and any amounts payable by it thereunder will be considered current liabilities allocable solely to cash (if the cash pool account is in a negative balance position, due to outstanding cheques or otherwise, that negative balance can be offset against any other bank account that is in a positive position); the quotas of Forco 3 owned by Canadian DC will be considered investment property; the portion of loans or advances (including the Canco 1 Loan) that is due within the next [12] months, as well as loans and advances with no fixed terms of repayment will be considered cash or near cash assets, and the balance of any such term loans (including the Canco 1 Loan) will be considered investment property; the real properties of Canadian DC, including its leasehold interests which are subject to the subleases, will be considered business property; any amount collected from customers and recorded as deferred revenue will not be considered a liability provided it does not represent a true legal liability capable of quantification; any net pension plan asset (i.e., actuarial plan assets in excess of actuarial plan liabilities) of Canadian DC will not be considered property of Canadian DC, but any net pension liability (i.e. actuarial plan liabilities in excess of actuarial plan assets for a registered pension plan will be considered a legal liability capable of quantification; any liability that is related to an unregistered retirement plan or similar post-employment arrangement (e.g., supplemental retirement or health care plan) will be disregarded where the amounts are dependent on future events; In the event that Canadian DC has cash or near-cash property (“cash”) at the time of the transfer in 5, then no later than XX days thereafter, Canadian DC will transfer cash as is required to ensure that the net FMV of the cash of Canadian DC transferred to Canadian TC will approximate the ratio of (a) the aggregate FMV of the Canadian DC Special Shares owned by Canadian TC immediately before the transfer, to (b) the aggregate FMV of all the issued and outstanding shares of Canadian DC immediately before the transfer- and such transfer will be considered to have been occurred as part of the transfer in 5. To the extent that current liabilities of Canadian DC are allocated to more than one type of property of Canadian DC (for example, as a result of the reclassification in 7(a)) and all or a portion of those liabilities are assumed by Canadian TC in 5, Canadian TC will have the option to allocate those current liabilities to any such corresponding type of property of Canadian TC, provided that the amount so allocated to a particular type of property of Canadian TC does not exceed the amount allocated to that same type of property by Canadian DC; Since the Canco 1 Loan (transferred in 5) will be considered to be both an investment, and cash and near cash asset, Canadian DC and Canadian TC will jointly agree on the portion of thereof that is of each property type of property, provided that the amount of the transferred Canco 1 Loan considered to be a particular type of property of Canadian TC does not exceed its amount that is considered to be of that type by Canadian DC; Canadian TC will redeem all of the outstanding Canadian TC Special Shares held by Canadian DC for a non-interest-bearing promissory note, payable on demand, and Canadian DC will accept the note as full payment of such redemption consideration. ...