Search - considered

This is also true for the trustee/beneficiary who, in this particular situation, is not considered to have control over the decision to add a new beneficiary. ...

Before concluding that the reimbursements were not includible pursuant to s. 6(1)(a), CRA stated: [T]ravel between an employee's residence and a place of work other than a regular place of work is generally considered to be in the performance of the duties of the office or employment. … Generally speaking, a regular place of work is any place to or from which an employee regularly reports or performs the duties of the employee’s employment. … [Here] the place of work designated in the employment contract is not a regular place of work for the new employees. ...

After noting that “a paragraph 94(3)(f) election cannot be filed separately from a return of income as to do so would not meet the necessary condition noted in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘electing trust’,” the Directorate indicated, regarding the first scenario: A paragraph 94(3)(f) election would be considered valid if it is filed with the return of income for the “first taxation year” even if that return is filed past its due date. … Given the fact that a non-resident that receives a letter containing proposed assessed amounts would almost certainly make a valid paragraph 94(3)(f) election before an audit assessment is actually issued, it appears unlikely that such a non-resident would ever be prevented from making a valid election. ...

4 January 2022 External T.I. 2015-0607531E5 F- Action admissible de petite entreprise-- summary under Subparagraph 110.6(14)(f)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 110.6- Subsection 110.6(14)- Paragraph 110.6(14)(f)- Subparagraph 110.6(14)(f)(i) s. 110.6(14)(f)(i) can apply to an amalgamation S. 110.6(14)(f)(i) provides that, for purposes of the requirement in s. 110.6(1)(b) that mooted qualified small business corporation shares ("QSBCSs") must not have not been owned during the 24 months preceding their disposition (the “determination time”) by anyone other than the disposing individual or a related person or partnership, such shares will be considered to have been so owned prior to their issuance by a “bad” owner unless they were issued as consideration for other shares (the “original shares”). ...

CRA considered such loss of the safe harbour to be anomalous, and had notified Finance accordingly. ...

CRA went on to state: Where in a particular year, more than 50% of a particular property is being used for some purpose other than farming or fishing or is otherwise vacant or idle, generally speaking, such non-farming or fishing use would result in the entire property not being considered as being used principally in the business of farming or fishing in Canada for the year. ...

Would USco be considered to be carrying on business in Canada for purposes of the Act? ...

After discussing the limited circumstances in which USco might be considered to be carrying on business by virtue of the Canadian home office activities of its employees, CRA then addressed whether any such business would be carried on through a permanent establishment in Canada, and stated: In most situations, the home office of the employee will not constitute a fixed place of business through which the business of USco is partly or wholly carried on. ...

Could ss. 17.1 and 247 both be applied to these facts without being considered as be in conflict, notwithstanding that the arm’s length rate determined in the context of s. 247(2) might be higher, lower or equivalent to the Reg. 4301(b.1) rate? ...

7 March 2022 External T.I. 2021-0895571E5- Clarification of Comments in 2020-086483-- summary under Paragraph (k) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Salary Deferral Arrangement- Paragraph (k) 3 years may start counting from before the grant year/ unfavourable counting where employer has non-calendar year 2020-0864831I7 found that full-value restricted share units (“RSUs”) granted early in the calendar taxation year of the employer (the “Grant Year”) were considered to be in respect of services in the previous year, so that such award came within the salary deferral arrangement (SDA) definition, and would not be excluded under para. ...