Search - considered

Is the rollover from a U.S. employer pension plan to the IRA considered income for purposes of paragraph 3(a) of the Act such that it would cause a tax liability under Part I.2, even though the rollover is deductible under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i)? ... Answer: An interest in an IRA is considered a "right or thing" within the meaning of subsection 70(2) of the Act and in the year of death there are three alternative tax treatments available as follows: 1) the total value may be included in the deceased's income in the year of death and, if exempt from income tax in the United States, a corresponding deduction taken under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i) of the Act, 2) the deceased's legal representative may make the election under subsection 70(2) of the Act and file a separate return, including the value of the IRA in the income reported on the separate return and, if exempt from income tax in the United States, claiming a corresponding deduction under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i) of the Act, or 3) amounts received out of the IRA may be taxed in the recipient beneficiary's hands under clause 56(1)(a)(i)(c.1) of the Act in the year of receipt if ownership of the IRA is transferred to the beneficiary (whether the spouse or child) in the time specified in subsection 70(3) of the Act. ...

You have asked for our comments regarding whether the amounts paid to individuals from developing countries in order to come to Canada to attend school full-time (usually for a period of one to three years) would be considered taxable income under paragraphs 56(1)(n) or 56(1)(o) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). ... As was the case in the previous review, there is nothing in the material submitted to us to suggest that the work (study) undertaken by these trainees would constitute "research" in the sense explained in Interpretation Bulletin IT-75R3 or that the amounts so received should be considered "research grants" pursuant to paragraph 56(1)(o) of the Act. ...

Generally up to 1/2 hectare is considered to be relevant to the personal use of a principal residence. However, where a portion of the land is used to earn income from a business or property, such portion will not usually be considered to contribute to such use and enjoyment. ...

Accordingly, the character of three lump sum payments on account of arrears was not considered to have changed by reason of the timing of the payments where they were made for the purposes of carrying out the terms of the agreement. (b)      It is also our general view that the lump sum payment made in the above situation will not be considered to include an interest element where the amount of the arrears does not include any interest element, the lump sum payment is less than the arrears and the lump sum payment has also been determined without reference to an interest element; and (c)      The Department's general position on the deductibility of alimony and maintenance under paragraph 60(b) of (c) of the Act is set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-118R3 "Alimony and Maintenance". ...

From your description of the employee's use of the automobile it is not clear whether he or she would meet this 90% test keeping in mind that travel such as between his temporary residence and the work place is considered personal in nature. ... Where the employee's temporary principal place of residence is in the foreign city and he or she must report to work at a field office of the employer which itself is in a remote location and independently meets the criteria of subparagraph 6(6)(b) then the transportation assistance will not be considered taxable. ...

Should a particular amount be required to be included in the computation of income by virtue of either of the above provisions or paragraph 12(1)(a), such an amount would fall within the exception contained in subparagraph 12(1)(x)(v) and would be considered to have been included in income otherwise than by virtue of paragraph 12(1)(x). ... Otherwise, none of the remaining payments would be considered to be in respect of the cost of capital or depreciable property acquired by the taxpayer. ...

Such income and benefits are considered to be property of an Indian on a reserve. In order to reach that decision the Court had to conclude that the situs of the debtor (being on a reserve) is not the sole factor to be considered in exempting income from taxation since unemployment insurance benefits are not paid from a reserve. ...

For purposes of subparagraph 125(7)(e)(i) of the Act, with respect to the partner's income from the particular partnership only, each full-time employee of the particular partnership will be considered to be a full time employee of each corporate partner. ... In applying the look through approach to a partnership interest it is the fair market value of the proportionate interest in the assets of the partnership which is considered to be the fair market value of the assets of the corporate partner. ...

On the basis that the terms of the Initial Plan were carried forward into the Second Plan, the Department considered whether the disability benefits were received by the individual "pursuant to" a plan "to or under which his employer has made a contribution" for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). ... As a consequence of these two points, where an individual was receiving benefits at the time of the conversion of a non-taxable plan to a taxable plan, the benefits paid subsequent to the conversion would be non-taxable in the amount and for the period specified in the non-taxable plan on the basis that those benefits, (to the extent that they are non-taxable), would be considered to have flowed from the non-taxable plan rather than having been paid "pursuant to" a plan "to or under which his employer has made a contribution" for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act. ...

., could be considered supplies and thus deductible under subparagraph 8(1)(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) in the event that we determine the clothing allowance to be taxable. ... It is our opinion that an employee would not be considered to be in receipt of a taxable benefit with respect to special or protective clothing (including safety footwear) which, by reason of the hazards inherent in the employment duties or by a law of a province or Canada, the employee is required to wear, where the employer provides the employee with a clothing allowance, to the extent the allowance is expended on such special or protective clothing. ...