Search - considered

Results 431 - 440 of 656 for considered

CRA finds that a recent change of a home from rental to principal-residence use cannot ground an FHSA withdrawal

Accordingly, the individual would be considered to have acquired the home more than 30 days previously even if he withdrew from his FHSA immediately after the deemed change in use, so that the “qualifying withdrawal” definition would not be satisfied. ...

CRA finds that the suspended loss rules continued to apply when the transferee was amalgamated, then wound-up into the transferor

CRA indicated that by virtue of s. 87(2)(g.4), Aco was considered following the winding-up to be a continuation of Amalco, and to own the Subject Shares and, given that under s. 251.1(4)(a), a person is affiliated with itself, Aco as the transferor continued to be affiliated with the person (Aco as the continuation of Amalco) who was the deemed owner of the Subject Shares. ...

CRA indicates that the conferral of a benefit on a non-resident sister by bearing the Part XIII tax on a royalty paid to it, is non-taxable

However: [T]he amount of Part XIII tax paid by Canco on behalf of Sisterco would not be included in computing the income of Sisterco under subsections 15(1) or (2) because, respectively, on the one hand, Sisterco is not a shareholder of Canco and, on the other hand, Sisterco would not be considered to a have received a loan from or become indebted to Canco. ...

2437299 Ontario – Tax Court of Canada finds that major renovations that did not largely “gut” the buildings were not “substantial renovations”

In determining whether there was substantial renovation of each property, both parties accepted the use of the second of the three methods referred to in GST/HST Technical Information Bulletin B-092 for measuring “substantial” (with 90% appearing in B-092 as the minimum percentage for a property to be considered as having been “substantially renovated”). ...

Duval – Quebec Superior Court indicates that it has jurisdiction to consider requests for judicial review of ARQ refusals to reassess consequentially on a federal reassessment

S. 1010.0.2 provides that, notwithstanding the expiration of the period to file objections, the Quebec Minister may, within one year of a federal reassessment “make a reassessment for the sole purpose of taking into account elements that may be considered to relate to that assessment or reassessment.” ...

CRA finds that the flipped property rule does not apply to a sale to avoid future insolvency

25 March 2024- 11:13pm CRA finds that the flipped property rule does not apply to a sale to avoid future insolvency Email this Content Although s. 13(12) deems the gain of a taxpayer from the disposition of a housing unit within 365 days of its acquisition to be an inventory gain, s. 12(13)(b)(viii) provides an exception for a disposition which inter alia can reasonably be considered to occur in anticipation of the taxpayer’s insolvency. ...

CRA finds that an information exchange agreement between one of Canada’s treaty partner’s and its overseas territory did not render the latter a “designated treaty country”

In finding that Sub-jurisdiction A would not be considered a “designated treaty country” under Reg. 5907(11), CRA first noted that such provision clearly provides that a designated treaty country does not include any territory to which the relevant tax treaty or TIEA does not apply, and then stated: [S]uch [subsequent] agreement will not, by itself, extend the territorial scope of the Canada- Country A tax treaty to Sub-jurisdiction A. ...

CRA finds that excess-value charges on UK-source pension payments imposed by HMRC did not qualify as foreign income tax, or reduce pension income

HMRC considered that the charge was not a tax on income, so that a Canadian-resident member would not benefit from the exemption under Art. 18 of the Canada-UK Treaty. ...

CRA applies s. 13(7)(e)(ii) to the purchase of a depreciable property from a non-arm’s length non-resident corporation with no tax nexus to Canada

Canco took the position that, as US Corp was a non-resident corporation which was not liable for tax in Canada, it was not a “taxpayer” under the Act in light of Oceanspan, so that it could not be considered to have a “capital property” (whose definition references a taxpayer), as required for the application of s. 13(7)(e)(ii). ...

CRA indicates that income from solar array panel might not be income from property, so that there was no specified investment business

If the course of conduct of the Corporation indicates that the income is produced with active and extensive business-like intervention, and the nature or legal character of the business transactions supports that, then the Corporation could be considered to derive income from a business rather than income from property. ...

You are here