Search - considered

DSI of Opco considered to be transferred to Holdco 2: $170- $98= $72. 3. ... DSI of Holdco 2 after reorg: (DSI of Holdco 2 prior to reorg ($10) + $72 DSI considered to have been received from Opco per 2 above) x net cost amount of assets considered retained by Holdco 2 ($37 per 3 above, plus the $20 cost of other assets, totaling $57) / (net cost amount of assets of Holdco 2 “prior to” [sic] reorg ($57) + net cost amount of assets considered to have been received from Opco ($100 cost of Property 1)) = 82 x 57/157 = $30. 5. DSI of Holdco 2 considered to be transferred to Holdco 1: $82 – $30 = $52. 6. ...

Y would be considered to arise directly or indirectly from a related business (the former Opco business) in respect of Ms. ... However, the dividend would not be considered to arise, directly or indirectly, from a related business in respect of Ms. ... Y from Investco would not be considered to be derived directly or indirectly from a related business in respect of Ms. ...

Would LP2 be considered to be a foreign affiliate of Canco for the purposes of the definition of "excluded property"? ... However… the requirement in paragraph (b) of the definition of "foreign affiliate" is not met in these circumstances and therefore LP2 cannot be considered a foreign affiliate of Canco. ... Accordingly, Canco would not be considered to be related to LP1 for the purposes of determining whether LP2 is a foreign affiliate of Canco for the purposes of the definition of "excluded property". ...

For the purposes only of applying paragraph 88(1)(c) to determine the cost of the Target Partnership A Units that were owned by TargetSubA on the Take-Up Date, following the amalgamation described in paragraph 17 above, pursuant to subsection 88(4), (i) Target Amalco will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target, for the purposes of applying the reference in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii) to "the subsidiary"; and (ii) Target Amalco will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, TargetSubA, for the purposes of determining whether Target Partnership A Units were capital property owned by Target Amalco on the Take-Up Date, and for the purposes of determining when AcquisitionCo last acquired control of Target Amalco. ... For the purposes only of applying paragraph 88(1)(c) to determine the cost of the Target Partnership A Units that were owned by TargetSubA on the Take-Up Date, following the [2nd] amalgamation...pursuant to subsection 88(4), (iii) New Amalco will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target, for the purposes of applying the reference in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii) to "the subsidiary"; and (iv) New Amalco will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, TargetSubA, for the purposes of determining whether Target Partnership A Units were capital property owned by New Amalco on the Take-Up Date, and for the purposes of determining when AcquisitionCo last acquired control of New Amalco. ...

The Tax Services Office reassessed, with the reassessments being buttressed by a secondary position that Delaware-LLLP should be considered as a corporation. The Directorate indicated that, consistently with 2016-0642051C6, a Delaware LLLP generally should be considered as a corporation given “the existence of a separate legal personality that is recognized under the DRULPA – meaning the full legal capacity to acquire and own property, to sue and be sued, to carry on their own activities and to incur liabilities of their own – and the limitation of liability afforded to all of its members.” However, in light of the transitional relief being afforded to Delaware LLLPs so that, in the taxation years involved, Delaware LLLPs would be considered as a “partnership for the purposes of the application of the Act to CanGP and CanLP’s XXXX…” it was suggested that the secondary position be dropped so as “to be consistent with the intended treatment of other taxpayer files being considered.” ...

A be considered income that is derived directly or indirectly from a related business for s. 120.4 purposes? CRA stated: Dividends paid by Investco out of its after-tax income from its investments in publicly-traded corporations would not be considered to be derived, directly or indirectly, from the related business of Opco in respect of Mrs. ... However, gains earned by Investco as a result of the investment of those dividends would not be considered to be derived, directly or indirectly, from the related business of Opco in respect of Mrs. ...

Z be considered to be derived directly or indirectly from an “excluded business” of Ms. ... CRA has considered that property received from an inter vivos trust, the terms of which unconditionally require that it distribute the property to the individual on the death of another person, can be considered as property acquired as a consequence of that person’s death. ... Z’s Investco common shares will be considered as property that was acquired her as a consequence of the death of another person, so that s. 120.4(1.1)(b)(ii) will deem Ms. ...

CRA elaborated on this position in the context of a graduated rate estate, indicating that: This position only applies “where the only reason that an amount of income is not payable to the beneficiaries is that it was earned in the initial 12 months of the estate” and does not apply where the income is not considered by CRA to be payable to the beneficiaries under the terms of the will. However, regarding the terms of the will, CRA is prepared to accept that, where the will does not specify which assets the bequests are to be paid from, “the residue of the Estate can include income” so that the income of the estate can be considered to be payable to the beneficiaries for ss. 104(6) and (23) deduction purposes. The quoted position allowing income in the executor’s year to be considered as payable to the beneficiaries only if they all so agree applies only where the estate has not been wound up in the executor’s year such that the estate administration continues beyond the first year (otherwise, the income would in fact have been payable in that year). ...

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: It should be noted that under the definition of "periodic pension payment" in section 5 of the [Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act], neither a payment from an RRSP before maturity or in full or partial commutation of the retirement income under an RRSP (such as a a fixed or single lump-sum payment from your RRSP annuity that is equal to the current value of all or part of your future annuity payments from the plan), or a payment from a RRIF that exceeds either twice the minimum payment or the 10% threshold, is considered to be a "periodic pension payment". ... In addition, since the Current Treaty and the New Treaty have pension and annuity provisions, then the pension provision, as the more specific provision, is considered to apply and, by extension, a periodic pension payment would not be considered to be an annuity. ...