Search - considered

This approach is accepted in Bulletin PST 319, which states that "unless a written partnership agreement provides otherwise…each partner is considered to own a proportionate share of the partnership assets equal to that partner's interest in the partnership. ... Accordingly, a purchase by the general partner was considered to come within the expanded definition of "purchaser," which refers to a person who acquires tangible personal property as agent – so that a purchase by the general partner was subject to full tax notwithstanding that the vendor had a proportionate interest as limited partner in the partnership. This approach also is accepted in Bulletin PST 319, which states that "unless a limited partnership agreement provides otherwise in writing, any transaction involving the limited partnership is considered to be a transaction with the general partner(s)" and that the acquisition of a limited partnership interest is not considered to be an acquisition of partnership assets, so that no PST is payable. ...

Similarly, the soliciting of orders in the UK through an agent was not sufficient to result in a non-resident being considered to exercise its wine trade there (Grainger). ... London Life) Where the business in question is one of trading in property, the business generally will be considered to be carried on where the contracts are made (Geigy, Sudden Valley, Belfour v. ... In order for the non-resident to be considered to be carrying on business in Canada, the activity in question must constitute the carrying on of a business. ...

If the terms of the royalty and the other circumstances are such that CRIC is considered to have conferred a benefit on the subsidiary, the value of that benefit will be considered to be an investment made by it in that subsidiary, thereby potentially giving rise to a deemed dividend to its non-resident parent. ... For example, the transfer by a CRIC of shares of one non-resident subsidiary to a second non-resident subsidiary for nominal share consideration would generally qualify for rollover treatment under s. 85.1(3), so that s. 212.3(18)(b)(ii) would deem there to be no resulting investment by the CRIC in the second non-resident subsidiary notwithstanding that it likely would be considered to have conferred a benefit on it. ...

Paragraph 212.3(2)(b) provides that the PUC of the CRIC is reduced by the amount of any increase in the PUC of its shares "that can reasonably be considered to relate to the investment. ... Instead, s. 212.3(2)(b) applies to reduce the paid-up capital of the shares in the capital of the CRIC the amount of the increase the shares’ PUC “that can reasonably be considered to relate to the investment” in Target. ... On a literal reading, this results in a deemed dividend of $200 arising to the non-resident parent under s. 212.3(2)(a), i.e., the sum of "any obligation assumed or incurred...by the CRIC...that can reasonably be considered to relate to the investment" (the $100 note incurred by it), plus "any property transferred...by the CRIC...that can reasonably be considered to relate to the investment" (the $100 value of the note issued to the parent viewed as property transferred by the CRIC to the parent relating to the investment). ...

Therefore (in the words of the Explanatory Notes of the Department of Finance), "where a CRIC is a member of a partnership that enters into any of the transactions described in paragraphs 212.3(10)(a) to (g), the CRIC is deemed to enter into the partnership's transaction, which would generally result in the CRIC being considered to have made an investment in a subject corporation." The Explanatory Notes also stated: The reference in paragraph 212.3(25)(a) to an "event participated in" is intended to capture any event described in paragraphs 212.3(10)(a) to (g) that cannot be considered to be a transaction, which may include certain benefit conferrals described in paragraph 212.3(10)(b) or term extensions described in paragraph 212.3(10)(e). ... As NR2 is not considered under the look-through rule in s. 212.3(25)(b) to own a majority of the shares of CRIC (and assuming there is no relevant unanimous shareholders' agreement which changes this conclusion), s. 212.3(2) does not apply to the $45 investment of NR2. ...

., generally an amalgamation or merger of a wholly-owned foreign affiliate of the CRIC with a "grandchild" non-resident subsidiary which otherwise would be considered to result in the acquisition by the CRIC of shares of a "new" merged entity. ... " In a foreign merger of a subject corporation with a subsidiary under which the subject corporation is the survivor, such survivor, in fact, would not be considered to be newly-formed under the applicable foreign corporate law. ... Under the applicable foreign corporate law, FA1 is considered to be the surviving corporation, and the existence of FA2 is considered to have ended on the merger. ...

As a practical matter, it often will be appropriate for tangible personal property to be considered to have a value equal to no more than its book value- so that any excess of the overall purchase price over the net book value of the purchased assets will be considered to be allocable to other assets such as goodwill or real estate. ...

S. 212.3(21) deems persons to be unrelated for the purposes of the reorganization exceptions in subsection 212.3(18) if it can reasonably be considered that one of the main purposes of one or more transactions or events was to cause those persons to be related so that one of those exceptions would apply. ... Canco likely would be considered to be dealing at arm's length with Buyco at the commencement of this series of transactions, so that (even before considering the exclusion in s. 212.3(21)), the acquisition of the remaining shares of Canco by Buyco would not be exempted under s. 212.3(18)(a)(i), by virtue of s. 212.3(18)(a)(i)(B), and would be viewed as an indirect investment by Buyco in FA under s. 212.3 (10)(f). ...

Commodities such as lead (see Taylor) and toilet paper (see Rutledge, and see also Fraser) are by their nature not of an investment character, so that their sale likely will be considered to be on income account. ... The sale of property that normally would be considered to be inventory of a business and, thus, held on income account has been found to be sold on capital account where its sale occurred as part of the sale of all the assets of a business (see Frankel and Doughty). ...

As the employee is only entitled to deduct expenses expended in the course of the taxpayer's employment, traveling expenses incurred in traveling between work and home (which generally are considered to be of a personal nature, provided that the home is not used as an office or other work site) do not qualify for deduction even if the "ordinarily away" requirement of s. 8(1)(h)(i) is satisfied (Diemert, Vickers, Blackburn, Gutscher- and the jurisprudence under s. 8(1)(h.1)). ... An employee may be considered to be ordinarily required to carry on his or her duties away from the employer's place of business (which can include a school) where he or she annually attends professional development seminars is accordance with the employer's expectations (Imray), is expected to attend school board meetings at a different location (Patterson), is expected as an implied term of her employment contract to attend such matters as principals' meetings and extracurricular events (Moore), is required to attend a training course in another city (Tremblay) or in the course of his duties as a fire chief must spend time away from the fire station responding to emergency calls or conducting inspections (Gariépy). Reporting to work daily at a trailer of the employer is not considered to be inconsistent with the employer's place of business being elsewhere (Freake). ...