Search - considered

To the best of your knowledge and that of the Company, none of the issues involved with this ruling request: (i) is in an earlier return of the Company or a related person; (ii) is being considered by a tax services office or taxation centre in connection with a previously filed tax return of the Company or a related person; (iii) is under objection by the Company or a related person; (iv) is before the courts or, if a judgment has been issued, the time limit for appeal to a higher court has expired, or (v) is the subject of a ruling previously considered by the Income Tax Rulings Directorate. ...

It is also our view that two corporations would be considered related under subparagraph 251(2)(c)(i) of the Act if a member ("majority partner") of a general partnership is able to control the activities of the partnership, including the exercise of the voting rights in respect of the shares of the two corporations owned by the general partnership, thereby making it possible to effectively control the two corporations. In situations where there is no majority partner, the two corporations would be considered related under subparagraph 251(2)(c)(i) of the Act if they are both controlled by the same group of people. ...

Lastly, subsection 13(27) of the Act generally establishes the time at which certain depreciable property (other than a building) is considered to have become available for use by a taxpayer for the purposes of determining, under subsection 13(26) of the Act, the time at which capital cost allowance may first be claimed. In particular, paragraph 13(27)(f) of the Act generally provides that a depreciable property (other than a building) acquired by a taxpayer that is a public corporation or the public corporation's "subsidiary wholly-owned corporation", as that term is defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act, will be considered to be available for use at the end of the year in which the property commences to be depreciated for accounting purposes. ...

If this is the case, and in the context of applying subparagraph 88(1)(d)(i.1), Acquisitionco (the "parent" for purposes of subsection 88(1)) would be considered to have dealt at arm's length with Pubco (the corporation receiving the dividends from Subco, the "subsidiary" for purposes of subsection 88(1) with respect to the second winding-up) at the time the dividends where received by Pubco. ... Consequently, Acquisitionco would be considered to have dealt at arm's length with Pubco at the time the dividends paid by Subco would be received by Pubco. ...

However, where a particular individual is considered to be an employee, there is a requirement to withhold tax at source and the amount of any employment income would be reported on a T4 Slip and Summary Form and not on a T4A. ... For information on determining whether someone is considered to be an employee or self-employed please refer to Guide RC4110- Employee or Self-employed? ...

Position: Amount is considered a benefit conferred on the Canadian resident individual pursuant to 246(1). ... Based on this meaning, the payment of taxes by the LLC would not be considered a dividend for Canadian tax purposes as the payment would not constitute a pro rata distribution by a corporation among its shareholders. ...

Although not yet in force, the New Agreement will eventually supersede the Agreement and its application to the Entities should therefore be considered. ... Income Tax Convention (1980) generally requires that a person be subject to as comprehensive a tax liability as is imposed by a state before being considered to be a resident of that state for purposes of the tax treaty. ...

XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Application of Section 2602 of the Income Tax Regulations We are writing in response to your email query of March 16, 2012 wherein you asked our opinion as to whether a non-resident person who earns Canadian employment income in multiple provinces has to allocate his or her income to each province or would the employment income be considered to be earned solely in the province where his employer has a permanent establishment. ... Generally, a person is a non-resident for tax purposes if he or she: Normally, customarily, or routinely lives in another country and is not considered a resident of Canada; or Does not have significant residential ties to Canada; and lives outside Canada throughout the tax year or stays in Canada for less than 183 days in the tax year. ...

However, as stated in paragraph 18 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-119R4, Debts of Shareholders and Certain Persons Connected with Shareholders, dated August 7, 1998, "a loan made for the purpose of refinancing an indebtedness that was incurred earlier to acquire a dwelling is not considered to have been made to enable or assist an employee or an employee's spouse to acquire a dwelling. ... In determining whether such commitments were made, all relevant facts and evidence will be considered, including formal documentation of the commitment, the nature of the original financing which should have the characteristics of usual interim financing and the reasons why the lender did not provide the original financing". ...

16 June 2009 Internal T.I. 2009-0312851I7- Deductibility of Average Rent for Long Term Lease Unedited CRA Tags 18(1)(a); 18(9)(a)(ii); 97(2) Principal Issues: Whether the comments provided in Technical Interpretation 2008-0272771I7, with respect to the deductibility of average long term lease payments, would have varied if additional information pertaining to the taxpayer had been considered, including the effect of a subsection 97(2) transfer of certain assets. ... In our letter, we considered whether escalating lease payments, which are deductible under generally accepted accounting principles on an average basis, would be deductible on an average basis for income tax purposes. ...