Search - considered

After noting its general position that “where a trust distributes assets in satisfaction of a non-resident beneficiary's capital interest in the trust, the beneficiary is considered to have disposed of that interest,” CRA indicated that, unlike the taxable Canadian property definition, the test under Art. ... Furthermore, a notice was not required to be given by the daughter beneficiary under s. 116(6.1)(b) because the estate of her parent (of which she was the sole executor) was not considered to be related to her. ...

(a taxpayer in this case) or Fyled (a UK corporate limited partner of the Cayman LP) who was liable for UK corporate income tax on carry profits allocated to the Cayman LP turned, in part, on whether Fyled was to be considered as a member of the UK LLP. In finding that Fyled could not be considered to be carrying on business in common with the named partners of the UK LLP and, thus, was not a member of the UK LLP, Whipple LJ stated: Cayman LP's business was carried on by its general partner (Cayman Ltd) and … the limited partners (including Fyled) were prohibited by Cayman law from taking part in Cayman LP's business …. ...

., hovering their hands over the body to guide energy throughout it) would not qualify as medical expenses under s. 118.4(2)(a) given the absence of any apparent “legislation that authorizes the practice of reiki in any of the Canadian jurisdictions” so that “reiki practitioners are not considered to be medical practitioners under paragraph 118.4(2)(a).” However, the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario seemed to allow registered massage therapists to integrate “First Degree Reiki” into massage therapy treatment plans, in which case, their services would still be considered to be registered massage therapy, with the associated fees being eligible as medical expenses. ...

Regarding the application of the safe-harbour rule as to the limited partners being considered to carry on business in Canada through the Manager, CRA indicated that the making of loans by the Manager on behalf of Foreign LP would generally qualify as “designated investment services” given that “there is no indication that an acquisition, holding and disposition of a debt acquired on original issue through the services of a Canadian service provider are meant to be excluded from the application of subsection 115.2(2).” Although the definition of “designated investment service” relevantly excluded only investment management and advice, CRA indicated that mere administrative services performed by the Manager would not by themselves cause the limited partners to be considered to be carrying on business in Canada (and similarly regarding any administrative services of the GP.) ...

5 May 2024- 10:58pm CRA indicates that it will follow Gardner (re deducting a sales person’s expenses of occasional travel between her home office and her employer) only on similar facts Email this Content Regarding the deductibility of automobile expense incurred by an employee, with a fully remote work arrangement, in connection with an occasional visit to the employer’s office from the home office, CRA stated: [T]raveling between an employee’s home, including a home office, and a regular place of employment (RPE) is generally considered personal travel …. … In this case, “regular” means there is some degree of frequency or repetition in the employee’s reporting to that particular location in a given pay period, month, or year. … For example, a work location may be considered to be a RPE of an employee even though the employee may only report to work at that particular location on a periodic basis (e.g., once or twice a month) during the year. ...

CRA ruled that the taxpayers will be considered to be carrying on business in Canada while such employees are providing such services, but that they will not be considered to be carrying on business in Canada through a permanent establishment, as defined in Article 5 or V of the applicable treaty, solely as a consequence of such services being so provided. ...

A disposition of the taxpayer’s claim would instead be considered to have occurred in the year of receipt of the Early Lump-Sum Repayment. Amounts received from the estate in the form of crypto-assets (i.e., the Bitcoin Cash) would be considered to have been “received” by the taxpayer as creditor when the Bitcoin Cash was credited to the taxpayer’s account with a cryptocurrency exchange. ...

It indicates that where real property is both situated in Canada and outside Canada, the proportion of the supply of the IPP that relates to the real property that is situated in Canada is considered to be made in Canada, while the proportion of the supply of the IPP that relates to the real property that is situated outside Canada is considered to be made outside Canada. ...

CRA considered that there was a requirement to recognize deemed interest income on the notes under Reg. 7000(2)(d) given that, in contrast to the usual equity-linked notes that were available to investors at the time, these notes had “internal puts,” i.e., SLT had the right to terminate the notes at any time, on 367 days’ notice, at the market value of the reference assets. On this basis, it considered that the “the maximum amount of interest thereon that could be payable thereunder in respect of that year” was the difference between the maximum value of the reference assets at the end of the year and the maximum value in the prior years, and assessed accordingly, to treat such annual increase as foreign accrual property income of SLT under element C of the s. 95(1) FAPI definition. Hamilton JCS rejected the taxpayers’ submissions that it was unreasonable of CRA to assess on the basis that the notes were “portfolio investments” within the meaning of s. 94.1 (given that they were held by SLT as passive investments and they tracked portfolio investments) and also considered it reasonable to consider that tax motivation figured significantly in the structure – but then went on to find that these assessments were unreasonable, given that in its previous published positions, CRA had “never suggested that the [mere] possibility of locking-in the bonus means that an amount can be accrued based on the highest value of the index in the year.” ...

31 May 2017- 1:25am Green – Federal Court of Appeal states that an upper-tier partnership should not compute its income Email this Content CRA considered that business losses incurred by lower-tier partnerships (the PSLPs) were deemed to be limited partnership losses of an upper-tier LP (MLP) – which meant that they were effectively trapped in MLP given that s. 111 (and, thus, the ability to deduct limited partnership losses under s. 111(1)(e)) was only available to a taxpayer and not to a partnership such as MLP. Webb JA rejected this interpretation and considered that the PSLP business losses were also business losses rather than limited partnership losses in the hands of MLP, so that such losses could be allocated to the MLP partners in the same manner as if they had been generated in a single-tier LP. ...