Search - considered

In that regard, in one Technical Interpretation [fn 33: … 2014-0563781E5 …] the CRA considered a situation in which a general partner of a limited partnership held a general partnership interest representing 1% of the interests in the limited partnership and, under the terms of the partnership agreement, the general partner had sole authority to manage and control the management activities and affairs of the partnership. ... The CRA stated that the general partner in this situation would be considered to control, directly or indirectly, at least 10% of the voting power of a corporation held by the partnership (this technical dealt with the Canada-UK Tax Treaty). ...

PWC, "Tax Insights: Cross-border cash pooling arrangements ─ Recent developments", Issue 2018-41, 2 November 2018-- summary under Subsection 15(2.6) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 15- Subsection 15(2.6) CRA expansive view of series in cash pooling context (p.2) 2017-0682631I7 … concluded that transactions occurring as part of a physical cash pooling arrangement are likely to be considered a series of loans and repayments and therefore reductions to amounts receivable would not meet the subsection 15(2.6) repayments exception. Recent CRA audit activity of cross-border cash pooling (p. 2) …The following highlights recent positions the CRA has taken in the course of audits: amounts received by a related non-resident head account holder in a cash pool from a Canadian entity member of the cash pool (as part of a cash pooling arrangement) are subject to the shareholder loan rules in subsection 15(2) of the Act the ordinary business and bona fide arrangement exception is generally not met because: there is a lack of evidence that a Canadian entity loans money to either arm’s length parties or other members in the corporate group … the terms of cash pooling deposit agreements do not generally include a fixed or specific date for the foreign company to repay the loan … [indicating no] bona fide arrangement for repayment the repayments exception is generally not met because the automatic daily cash sweeps are considered to form part of a series of loans or other transactions and repayments …each loan requires a separate [PLOI] election, so if the election is filed late, there can be multiple late filing penalties there will be no refund of the withholding tax paid on the amount of a loan deemed to be a dividend when the loan is repaid if the repayment is part of a series of loans and repayments ...

John Tobin, "Infrastructure and P3 Projects", 2017 Conference Report (Canadian Tax Foundation), 10:1-31-- summary under Paragraph 3100(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 3100- Subsection 3100(1)- Paragraph 3100(1)(b) Government progress payments (treated as s. 13(7.1) capital cost deductions) are prescribed benefit under Reg. 3100(1)(b) (p. 10:15) [T]o the extent that Projectco takes the view that the amount of the payments for the construction period reduces the capital cost of a class 14 property (on the basis that subsection 13(7.1) applies), these amounts are considered to be prescribed benefits irrespective of whether they are enjoyed directly or indirectly (that is, through the partnership itself). If, however, they were treated as construction-period revenues, they would not be considered to be prescribed benefits. ...

[and] that a partner that is considered to be dealing at arm’s length with a partnership should also be considered to be dealing at arm’s length with the corporation controlled by the partnership. ...

The individual will own shares of Newco when the dividend arises, and therefore it could be argued that the deemed dividend under section 84.1 should be considered to be paid on these shares. … In common parlance, a “dividend” is considered to be a distribution of corporate profits to its shareholders, and therefore it could be argued that in order for a deemed or fictitious dividend to arise, there must be deemed or fictitious shares on which the dividend is paid. ...

Joint Committee, "Definition of 'Public Corporation'", 4 March 2019 Joint Committee Submission-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 89- Subsection 89(1)- Public Corporation- Paragraph (a) shares of Target are considered to be listed up until the completion of the delisting process Acquisitionco, a private company, acquires all the shares of Targetco, a public corporation, and immediately amalgamated with it. 2017-0723771C6 (2017 CTF Roundtable Q. 12) indicates that once the shares of Targetco were delisted, and provided that CRA accepted that the fact that the Targetco shares no longer existed did not preclude the making of an election under (c)(i) (as to which it was prepared to rule on a case-by-case basis), Amalco could make such election on behalf of Targetco, so that Amalco was not deemed to be a public corporation under s. 87(2)(ii). ... In early 2018, a request was made for a Technical Interpretation that if, shortly before the amalgamation of Targetco with Acquisitionco, Acquisitionco held all the Targetco shares and the Stock Exchange had been notified to delist the shares, the Targetco shares would not be considered to be listed for purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of public corporation. ...

. … AAII is calculated as if no FAT were deducted; therefore, FAPI earned by a Canadian-resident corporation would be considered AAII, irrespective of FAT paid by the relevant CFA on the FAPI. However, the FAPI earned by the CFA could also be considered AAII earned by the CFA, depending on the character of the income. ...

Joint Committee, "GAAR Proposals and Self-Help Transactions", 13 October 2023 Joint Committee Submission-- summary under Subsection 245(4.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 245- Subsection 245(4.1) suggested list of examples of transactions which should not be considered to be a GAAR abuse The Explanatory Notes examples regarding s. 245(0.1)(a) (RRSP contributions and accelerated CCA claims) do not reflect that many tax planning strategies utilize a series of transactions which navigates around inappropriate tax consequences in ways that likely were not specifically contemplated by Parliament. The Explanatory Notes should clarify that tax benefits may be achieved through transactions undertaken by taxpayers which benefits were not specifically contemplated by Parliament, but which may not be considered to result in a misuse or abuse. ...

.-- summary under Subsection 248(10) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(10) Pre-butterfly transaction whose structure or timing is affected by considerations relating to the butterfly is in contemplation thereof (p. 14:10) It is not our view that property will necessarily be considered to have become property in contemplation of a subsequent butterfly reorganization merely because it is intended, at the time the property becomes property of the particular corporation, to carry out the butterfly reorganization; instead, there must be some connection between the acquisition and the later reorganization. In other words, if it can be established that property would have become property of the particular corporation at a particular ti.me, whether or not a butterfly reorganization would subsequently be undertaken, the transaction in which property became property of the particular corporation will not normally be considered to have occurred in contemplation of the butterfly reorganization. ...

An Amalco should be considered to be the same corporation as in a continuation of its predecessors and the ownership period of a predecessor corporation in a winding up to which s. 88(1) applied should be included in determining whether the 365-day test has been met. The 365-day test should be considered to be met for a beneficiary who acquires property by way of a tax-deferred distribution under s. 107(2) if it was held for 365 consecutive days by the trust. ...