Search - considered

21 September 2020- 10:35pm CRA indicates that that “US EIP” payments received under the CARES Act are not income from a source Email this Content A permanent resident of Canada receiving “US EIP” payments under the CARES Act, being a refundable tax credit for U.S. citizens and U.S. resident aliens that is recaptured if adjusted gross income reaches certain thresholds was not taxable thereon given that: The amount is considered an advanced payment of a 2020 refundable tax credit, and therefore is likely not income from a source under the Income Tax Act. ...

3 February 2021- 10:57pm CRA indicates no Indian Act exemption for CESB benefits Email this Content CRA indicated that there was no Indian Act exemption for any Canada emergency student benefit (CESB) received by a First Nation individual residing on a reserve, given that it “is not considered to be situated on a reserve as there are insufficient factors connecting this income to a reserve,” and it instead “is available to all Canadians who qualify and [is] paid from general government funds.” ...

6 January 2022- 10:53pm CRA confirms that it regards the granting of an emphyteusis as a part disposition of property rather than as a lease Email this Content CRA has confirmed its position in 2013-0487791E5 F, where it indicated (reversing 2012-0472101E5 F) that it now considered that the entering into of an emphyteutic lease represents a part disposition of property rather than something analogous to the entering into of a common law lease. ...

30 January 2022- 10:51pm CRA adds Quebec psychotherapists to its list of authorized medical practitioners Email this Content CRA will be adding “psychotherapist legally authorized" to its list of Authorized medical practitioners for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit so that “expenses incurred for psychotherapy services rendered by psychotherapists who hold a psychotherapy permit issued by the Ordre des psychologues du Québec will now be considered medical expenses" … for purposes of the medical expense tax credit.” ...

For example, under s. 118.1(2.1), gifts will be considered to have been claimed in determining an individual's charitable donations tax credits in the order in which they were made (i.e., on a “first-in, first-out” basis). ...

28 October 2024- 11:07pm CRA indicates that payment of trust-related professional fees by a trustee or beneficiary prior to (rather than after) trust settlement does not engage s. 75(2) Email this Content CRA indicated that the payment of trust-related professional fees by a trustee or beneficiary prior to trust settlement does not engage s. 75(2), whereas such payments following the settlement “could be considered a contribution or transfer made indirectly to the trust by that other person and could, depending on the circumstances, result in the application of subsection 75(2).” ...

This busted rollover relief to Mr Ellison unless it could be considered that the beneficial ownership of those shares had already been transferred to her because of the consent orders. ... The difficulty in this regard was that (subject to a glitch discussed below) Sandini held a total of 35M shares of the public company, so that it might be considered that even after the order it had the right to decide which out of that larger pool was the block of 2.1M shares to be transferred to Ms Ellison (or, as it turned out, to her company). ...

Under partnership law in common-law provinces (and somewhat similarly in Quebec), all members of a partnership are considered to be carrying on any activity carried on by the partnership. ... However, it is now accepted that this likely is not a concern, given inter alia that pursuant to Canadian common-law partnership principles, each member is considered to have an undivided interest in the property of the partnership. ...

(c), it had previously stated that because “…any dividend paid by PC1 to Spouse A would be considered to be derived directly or indirectly from a 'related business' carried on by PC2 (and not PC1) in Year 2 and subsequent years,” the shares of PC1 held by Spouse A would not qualify as “excluded shares.” CRA now acknowledges: In the event that the income of PC1 for Year 2 and any subsequent year is income earned solely from its investment business, such income would not be considered to be derived directly or indirectly from the medical services business now carried on by PC2. ...

In the alternative, Smith J considered whether GAAR should apply even if the units in the Income Funds were qualified investments. ... After finding that the Minister’s assessment of the taxpayer himself respecting the RRSP income pursuant to s. 56(2) was unsupported by the wording of that provision, Smith J went on to indicate that he would have upheld the reassessments of the taxpayer in those amounts on the basis of the GAAR, but for this resulting “in a duplication of the tax which the Minister has also sought to impose on the RRSP Trust pursuant to subsection 146(10.1)” – which could not “be considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ as contemplated in subsection 245(5).” ...