Search - considered

CRA indicated that De Mond has not altered its view (in 9518515) that a revocable living trust is recognized at the time that legal title to property is transferred to it, with such transfer being considered to occur at fair market value. ...

Before paraphrasing the requirements under s. 60(1)(j)(i) for such a deduction, CRA stated: a foreign plan will be considered to be a superannuation or pension plan where contributions are made to the plan by or on behalf of the employer or former employer of an employee in consideration for services rendered by the employee and the contributions are used to provide an annuity or other periodic payment on or after the employee’s retirement. ...

After concluding that a Canadian beneficiary’s interest is considered to be specified foreign property, and the individual is required to file T1135s reporting inter alia the “cost amount” of the individual’s interest in the fund, CRA stated: Provided the Super Fund described above is a pension and an employee benefit plan, the cost amount of the interest in the Super Fund will be the amount the individual has a right to receive in respect of the Super Fund. ...

After concluding that a Canadian beneficiary’s interest is considered to be specified foreign property, and the individual is required to file T1135s reporting inter alia the “cost amount” of the individual’s interest in the fund, and that such cost amount included all future amounts which the individual was legally entitled to receive from the Super Fund, CRA stated: …[W]here it is not possible to determine the cost amount of a specified foreign property, taxpayers should use their best efforts to reasonably estimate the cost amount of the property. ...

[F]or CCA purposes, the property made available to an employee-shareholder as an employee would be considered to be acquired by the corporation for the purpose of gaining or producing income. ...

8 May 2012 Roundtable, 2012-0435771C6- CALU CRA Roundtable – May 2012- Question 10-- summary under Subsection 207.6(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 207.6- Subsection 207.6(2) In response to a question as to the circumstances in which a life insurance policy can "reasonably be considered to be acquired to fund in whole or in part," CRA indicated that the factors it would consider would include: the identity of the employees whose lives are insured as compared to those to be provided benefits under the plan; the timing of the acquisition of the insurance and the setting up of the plan; the timing of the acquisition of the insurance and the setting up of the plan; reasons (other than the existence of the plan) for the employer's purchase of insurance. ...

. … If, following the assignment [of the policy to the charity], the individual continues to pay the policy premiums directly to the insurance company at the request of the registered charity or with its consent, the individual will be considered to have made a gift qualifying for the charitable donations tax credit, in the same manner as if the individual had donated money to the charity to enable the charity to pay premiums on the assigned life insurance policy. ...

. … … [I]t cannot be considered … that the amounts payable by Corporation B and/or Corporation C under the second contract could represent consideration for the use of an amount of capital (or a right to the amount of capital). … [In addition t]he contractual relationship between Corporation A and Corporation B, on the one hand, and Corporation A and Corporation C, on the other hand, … does not appear to us to create a lender-borrower relationship between those corporations, so that subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) cannot be applicable. ...

CRA indicated that it was not convinced that an analysis of the Civil Code provisions pointed to this conclusion, but went on to state (TaxIntepretations translation): [I]f it were determined that such a comparative analysis supported the conclusion that a US LLC must be considered as a partnership for the purpose of application of the Act, we suggest that it would not be appropriate to adopt a classification approach to entities and foreign arrangements which could result in a different classification according to the province or territory of the residence (or permanent establishment) of the taxpayer holding an interest in the entity or the arrangement. … [I]t appears to us, based in particular on the conflict of law rules, that the provincial and territorial laws of property and civil rights in Canada provide for mutual recognition of different types of entities or arrangements established under the respective jurisdictions of the various provinces and territories, thus providing an expanded base for analysis that is uniform across Canada for the purposes of applying the two-step approach. ...

. … [I]f it were determined that such a comparative analysis supported the conclusion that a US LLC must be considered as a partnership for the purpose of application of the Act, we suggest that it would not be appropriate to adopt a classification approach to entities and foreign arrangements which could result in a different classification according to the province or territory of the residence (or permanent establishment) of the taxpayer holding an interest in the entity or the arrangement. … [I]t appears to us, based in particular on the conflict of law rules, that the provincial and territorial laws of property and civil rights in Canada provide for mutual recognition of different types of entities or arrangements established under the respective jurisdictions of the various provinces and territories, thus providing an expanded base for analysis that is uniform across Canada for the purposes of applying the two-step approach. ...