Search - considered

29 March 2021 Internal T.I. 2020-0865791I7- CEWS- eligible remuneration-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt remuneration not considered to be paid by journal entry The CEWS (wage subsidy) is generated based on the amounts of “eligible remuneration paid to the eligible employee.” CRA stated, in the context of an employee who also was the controlling shareholder of the eligible entity, that “where salary and wages are only reflected by journal entry as an expense by the employer with a corresponding credit to a due to shareholder loan account, such salary and wages are not considered eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee.” ...

6 April 2023 Internal T.I. 2022-0929731I7- Articles 18(2) and (3) of the Canada-Italy Treaty-- summary under Section 5 Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act- Section 5 CPP and OAS are normally considered pensions for Treaty purposes Regarding the receipt by an individual resident in Italy of periodic Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and Old Age Security (“OAS”) benefit payments, the Directorate stated: [S]ection 5 of the Income Tax Conventions Interpretations Act provides a definition of the term “pension” in respect of payments that arise in Canada. Both the CPP and OAS are normally considered pensions for purposes of Canada’s tax treaties. ...

., from use as a principal residence to rental use) in a building of four units owned by the taxpayer, the four units would be considered as four separate properties for the purposes of the change-in-use rules in ss. 13(7)(a), (b) and 45(1)(a), rather than the building being considered a single property and the change-in-use rules in ss. 13(7)(d) and 45(1)(c) applying instead. ...

In confirming that for the purpose of applying s. 87(11)(b) to determine the cost of the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets to NewTarget2, (i) the TCC shares acquired by former Target shareholders will be "specified property" under s. 88(1)(c.4)(iii), and (ii) NewTarget will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Subco2 for the purpose of determining whether the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets were capital property owned by NewTarget at the time that Parent last acquired control of NewTarget, CRA stated: [W]hen interpreting subsection 88(4) in a particular situation, the corporation formed as a result of an amalgamation is deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, the predecessor relevant to that situation, having regard to all the circumstances including the provision to which subsection 88(4) is being applied. Therefore… we would apply subsection 88(4) such that the TCC shares issued to the former Target shareholders would be considered to be received as consideration for the acquisition of shares of the subsidiary, NewTarget, (because NewTarget is deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target) by TCC and Parent (which are, respectively, the taxable Canadian corporation and the parent referred to in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii)). ... CRA confirmed (similarly to the above analysis) that, because of the operation of s. 88(4), NewTarget2 will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target for the purpose of the reference to "subsidiary" in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii); and that NewTarget2 will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Subco2 for the purpose of determining whether the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets were capital property owned by NewTarget2 at the time Parent last acquired control of NewTarget2. ...

After noting that that if USco's employees had been seconded to the Canadian affiliates, then their services could not be counted in determining whether USco had either a construction site PE or a services PE, CRA stated: only the services rendered at the construction site can be considered. ... V, para. 9, CRA concluded: If a PE exists under paragraph 3...only the services provided offsite would be considered in determining whether a PE exists under paragraph 9. In no PE exists under paragraph 3, then all of the services in Canada can be considered in the determination of whether a PE exists under paragraph 9. ...

CRA stated: Any capital gain realized by Forhold on a disposition of its 90% interest in P1 would be excluded from its foreign accrual property income ("FAPI") because the interest in P1 would be considered "excluded property" as defined in subsection 95(1)…. ... The Department commented as follows: This position is consistent with the definition of "excluded property" in paragraph 95(1)(a.1) in that it was considered necessary to enact, for purposes of paragraphs 95(1)(d) and 95(4)(a) as they apply to paragraph 95(1)(a.1), the deeming provisions in subparagraphs 95(1)(a.1)(iv) and (v) in order that where a foreign affiliate had an interest in a partnership and the shares of the capital stock of a corporation in which all or substantially all the assets were used in an active business were partnership property such shares could be considered excluded property. ... CRA stated: For the purpose of the excluded property rules P1 and P2 would be considered non-resident corporations. ...

8 August 2002 Ruling Case No. 31015-- summary under Section 6 Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Schedules- Schedule V- Part I- Section 6 A registrant upon completion of construction of a nursing home would not be entitled to the new housing rebate under s. 256.2 (and also would not be required to self-assess under section 191) because the subsequent supplies it made to residents of the facility would not be considered to be described in section 6. ... Accordingly the registrant would be considered to be making a single supply that was not simply that of accommodation as set out in section 6. ...

In determining whether its income from the rental partnerships was income from a specified investment business, CRA indicated that although each full-time employee of a particular partnership will be considered to be a full-time employee of each corporate partner, "each partnership must be considered separately when determining whether a partner's income is from a specified investment business. ...

Accordingly, for the purpose of determining whether Aco's rental operations are a SIB, Aco is not considered to employ the employees of the partnership of which it is a partner, since such employees are considered to be employed by the partners collectively. ...

(February 1990 Access Letter, ¶1123)-- summary under Specified Investment Business Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125- Subsection 125(7)- Specified Investment Business Where a corporation which is one of a group of corporations in the business of leasing rental properties employs a 7-man maintenance crew which spends 40% of its time working for the corporation and the rest of the time working for the associated corporations in return for a management fee, the corporation will not be considered to employ 5 full-time employees. Where a corporation in the business of leasing rental properties employs 6 people in various functions, approximately 60% of whose time is spent on corporation business and the remainder on contract work for associated corporations, the corporation will not be considered to employ 5 full-time employees. ...