Search - considered

CRA somewhat generously considered that all of these items fell within the listed s. 135 items other that the exhibition booth, which it characterized as a supply of real estate. ... These packages are all considered a single supply of promotional services, because, amongst other things, it is not possible for a sponsor to choose which benefit it wants and to only pay that price. ...

S. 125(5.2) deems two related corporations to also be associated where one of them directly or indirectly transfers assets to the other and one of the reasons for the transfer can reasonably be considered to be to reduce the passive income of the associated group for s.125(5.1)(b) purposes. ... However, if it may reasonably be considered that one of the reasons that the payment of dividends was made was to reduce the adjusted aggregate investment income … in respect of Opco … then … the anti-avoidance rule in subsection 125(5.2) could apply. ...

He indicated that given that the courts have indicated a very low threshold for when a corporation has a business, the corporation would likely be considered to have a business for TOSI purposes. However, he conceded that if the corporation only held GICs, it would be considered to earn income from property, so that the TOSI rules could not apply. ...

Where a builder was invoiced, after the time that it self-assessed for the fair market value of a newly-constructed multiple unit residential complex (at the time of substantial completion and first tenant occupancy) for work done before that time, CRA explained the availability of an input tax credit therefor on the basis that, by virtue of s. 133: where a builder of a MURC agrees to acquire property or a service for consumption or use in constructing the MURC, the supply of the property or service is generally considered to be made to the builder at the time that the agreement is entered into (that is, the builder is considered to be the recipient of the supply at that time). ...

For example, is an interest in a partnership holding land inventory an “eligible property” under s. 85(1.1); or is a Crown corporation with a 99% interest in a partnership with a wholly-owned subsidiary considered to be a 90% owner of the shares of that subsidiary for s. 149(1)(d.2) purposes? The High Court considered it to be “orthodox” and correct law that “the interest of partners in relation to partnership assets is not an interest in any particular asset but is an indefinite and fluctuating interest in relation to the assets, being the right to a proportion of the surplus after the realisation of the assets and payment of the debts and liabilities of the partnership.” ...

The Directorate went on to note that “Son also held contingent beneficial interests in the remaining … Estate [assets], which would only be realized if the other Children die without issue surviving” and that: …[I]t is unlikely that the FMV of Son’s contingent beneficial interests at the Time could result in him being considered a “majority-interest beneficiary” of Father’s Estate. … Accordingly, it is unlikely that the FMV of the total of Son’s respective income or capital interests in Father’s Estate could reasonably be considered to be greater than 50% of the FMV of all of the income or capital interests in Father’s Estate …. ...

Where a corporation produces and “sells” training videos as digital downloads from its website, are its resulting revenues considered as income from the provision of services for TOSI purposes? ... CRA went on to indicate that payments for after-sales service, for “pure technical assistance” and for services rendered by a supplier under a guarantee, are considered to be income from the provision of services. ...

Regarding the requirement in the definition of “eligible employee” that the individual be “employed in Canada,” CRA stated that “generally, a person exercises the functions of their employment at the place where they are physically present,” so that “when that place is situated outside Canada, that person will not generally be considered as being ‘employed in Canada’.” Amounts paid by an eligible employer to an eligible employee as a maternity or parental top-up amount are generally considered as eligible remuneration for the relevant claim period. ...

CRA went on to note that this position: extended to the consolidation of income from foreign corporations that were not foreign affiliates (citing Lamont) generally would not extend to portfolio investments in public corporations (given that “what would be considered to contribute to the value of the shares held by the shareholder is not the income of the public corporations but rather the trading value of its shares on the stock exchange”) CRA also stated: … [T]he negative safe income of corporations would reduce the safe income of a holding corporation only to the extent that it can be considered to result in a reduction of the value of the shares of the holding corporation, for example, either because of a guarantee made by the holding corporation, or because of an actual payment for the losses by the holding corporation [citing Brelco]. ...

CRA found that “[s]ince neither spouse works more than 4 hours in any business carried on by any of the particular corporations they own, the requirements of the bright line test in paragraph 120.4(1.1)(a) would not be met and, as such, it remains a question of fact as to whether either spouse would otherwise be considered to be actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis in the activities of each such business on the basis of the limited number of hours worked.” However, CRA went on to indicate that “useful” guidance was to be garnered from 2019-0799901C6, which indicated: [A] husband and wife could both be considered to be actively engaged in the activities of a particular business carried on by their corporation on a regular, continuous and substantial basis for a particular year where the particular business did not require any other workers and only required them to spend on average 5 hours each per week in that business. ...