Search - considered

Is the member’s income from the LLC considered to arise as it is earned by the LLC rather than only once it is distributed by the LLC to its members? ... Notwithstanding Anson, CRA considered that where a Canadian-resident member’s share of LLC income is subject to U.S. tax but the income is not distributed, no Canadian foreign tax credit will be available in the year the income is earned – nor in a subsequent year given that s. 126(1) does not permit the carryforward of the foreign tax. CRA also considered that this result is consistent with Canada’s Treaty obligations. ...

After stating that although “a director is generally considered to hold office, this is not the case for a director who works for a company solely on a voluntary basis,” which references the situation where “individuals who work on a volunteer basis receive no remuneration or at most minimal remuneration for services rendered on a volunteer basis” – with remuneration considered minimal where the remuneration paid to the individual is “significantly less than that which would have been paid to an employee or self-employed person rendering similar services,” so that “it is unlikely that minimal remuneration is sufficient to secure the volunteer's services.” CRA stated that here: [I]f the facts as a whole show that the individuals perform their duties as directors on a volunteer basis and not in the course of an office or employment or as self-employed persons, in our view, reimbursement of automobile expenses, reimbursement of airfare and meal allowances for attending board meetings (including allowances paid to cover meals for their spouses while travelling) would not be considered employment or business income if they are the only amounts received by them. ...

What date should be considered in determining whether the expenses incurred are CEE or Canadian development expense ("CDE")? After first noting that as the expenses were incurred after June 20, 2013, they did not qualify as CEE in paragraph (g) of the definition, CRA stated: [I]f the written agreement described in paragraph (g.3) of the definition of CEE in subsection 66.1(6) is the written agreement (dated December 31, 2012) for the issuance of a flow-through share, the $2 million expense could be considered CEE by virtue of paragraph (g.3) of the definition of CEE in subsection 66.1(6) because the expenses are incurred before 2017. ... Thus, since the expenses in the amount of $2 million were incurred by Corporation X after June 20, 2013 but before 2015 and are eligible pre-production mine development expenses, the expenses paid by Corporation X to the subcontractor are considered to be CEE. ...

Therefore, the testing, even if done inside Canada, is considered ordinary testing or engineering in itself and is not eligible. ... However, if the studies required to meet the regulatory requirements meet all three eligibility criteria, as in Case B, they would be considered eligible and would constitute an SR&ED project. ... If the project is carried on in Canada under subsection 248(1) of the ITA (formerly section 2900 of the Income Tax Regulations), thereby satisfying one of the criteria for the project to be considered an SR&ED project, the next analysis is to determine what portion of the expenses were incurred in Canada. ...

. … [W]here a property is a capital property, in the absence of plans to proceed with the development of a subdivision, making application to the relevant authority for approval of a plan to subdivide would not, in and by itself, cause the property to be considered as being converted to inventory. Where this is the case, the entire amount of a forfeited deposit would be considered capital in nature …. … [If] a conversion of the land from a capital property to a trading property has taken place … [t]he taxpayer would have a notional capital gain on the date of conversion which would not be considered to give rise to taxable capital gains until the year in which the lots were actually sold. ...

B is, to a large extent, intended to compensate her for the care given to the child, the total amount will be considered to be remuneration for attendant care. However, if this is not the case, the global amount charged will be considered as an amount paid for the child's room and board (with all services included) and not as an amount paid to Ms. ... B charged a detailed amount for all the services provided, i.e. a specific amount for room and board and a specific amount for the care she provides to the child, the amount charged specifically for care would be considered as remuneration for the attendant care. ...

In the course of a general response, CRA stated: [A] payment in lieu of remuneration for the reasonable period of notice of termination provided for in the Quebec Act Respecting Labour Standards is considered to be employment income because the payment is intended to replace wages that would otherwise have been earned. ... This amount cannot therefore be considered as a retiring allowance. On the other hand, the portion of a payment that exceeds the compensation in lieu of notice may, depending on the circumstances, be a retiring allowance. … Where an employee elects to receive the amount of the retiring allowance in instalments, it is our view that the instalments will be taxable in the year they are received. However, as noted in paragraph 17 of the Bulletin, the payments are not considered to be retiring allowances if an employer treats the instalments as income from employment for the purposes of computing Employment Insurance premiums and benefits, Canada Pension Plan accruals or eligible years of service under a registered pension plan. ...

The MFT will be considered to be an open-ended trust for purposes of s. 108(2)(a), its only undertaking will be considered to be the investing of its funds in CT units and the First Notes, the MFT units will not be considered to be foreign property (provided that the MFT continues to hold less than 20% of its property in the CT units), and GAAR will not apply. ...

CRA stated: An insured plan (employer pays premiums under a contract of insurance) will generally be considered to be a PHSP if all of the expenses covered under the plan are medical expenses or connected expenses, and “all or substantially all” (generally 90% or more) of the premiums paid under the plan relate to medical expenses that are eligible for the METC. The actual benefits paid to employees in the year are not considered …. ... The employees’ allocation of the ceiling amount to the various expense categories is not considered, so that in the HCSA example, if the portion of the benefits paid in the year for METC-eligible benefits was, say, 92%, it would not matter that the total ceiling amounts allocated to METC-eligible expenses was only 80%. ...

It suggested that the new oil or gas wells would be considered to be a different business, but it stated that the place of production will not by itself determine whether the same business is conducted after the acquisition of control, and its focus was on the “similar properties” test in s. 111(5), as to which it stated that oil or gas from wells located in different provinces would be considered to be a “similar property.” ... However, in technical interpretation 9314945, the CRA opined that where a corporation carries on the business of mining and selling metallurgical coal as well as the business of mining and selling other minerals, income therefrom will be considered to be derived by those businesses from the “sale, leasing, rental or development…of similar properties” for the purposes of subparagraph 111(5)(a)(ii) provided that the other conditions in paragraph (a) are met. ...