Search - considered

The determination of whether or not a period of employment can be considered as "eligible service" for the purposes of an RPP is a question of fact, which requires an examination of the terms of your employer's RPP and the relevant Income Tax Regulations (the "Regulations"). ... In Henderson 1991 DTC 1116 (TCC), the court considered whether the taxpayer was in "employment" as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act. ...

Historically, the manner in which a deceased taxpayer's tax payable for the year of death was reduced as a result of an election under subsection 164(6) was that the deceased taxpayer's legal representative was considered to have paid an amount on account of the deceased taxpayer's tax payable for the year of death equal to the reduction in tax that would have occurred if the losses subject to the election had been realized by the deceased taxpayer rather than by the estate. ... When the total of the capital losses that are the subject of an election under subsection 164(6) and capital losses otherwise realized by the deceased taxpayer in the year of death exceed the amount of capital gains realized by the deceased taxpayer in that year, paragraph 164(6)(f) limits the application of the resulting net capital loss to any other taxation year to the extent that the amount of the net capital loss can be considered to be in respect of the capital losses that were the subject of the election under subsection 164(6). ...

We understand that, to the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers involved, none of the issues involved in the ruling request: (i) is in an earlier return of a taxpayer 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 a taxpayer or a related person; (iii) is under objection by a taxpayer 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 not expired; and (v) is the subject of a ruling previously issued by the Directorate. ... Subsequent to that meeting, the Corporation and the Shareholder/Managers became aware that the Canada Revenue Agency clarified its policy on when such remuneration would be considered reasonable for purposes of section 67 of the Act, and as a result, jointly decided that the Bonus would not be paid until such time as a favourable advance income tax ruling could be obtained on the income tax status of the Bonus. ...

Some of the criteria which should be considered in making this determination are set out in Interpretation Bulletin IT-322R. ... Further, that paragraph indicates the requirement is considered to have been met when the person is actively engaged in the management and/or day-to-day activities of the farming business. ...

Furthermore, the payment by the legal representative to the annuity issuer will be considered the payment of an amount on behalf of the child for purposes of paragraph 60(l) of the Act. ... For this purpose, there is a rebuttable presumption that a child or grandchild is not considered to be financially dependent on the annuitant if the child or grandchild's income for the year preceding the taxation year in which the annuitant died exceeded the amount determined under subsection 146(1.1) of the Act. ...

An allowance paid to an employee for board and lodging expenses incurred by the employee at a location that is considered the employee's regular place of employment is generally included in the employee's income pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act. ... The employee must meet all of the following requirements to exclude from income the value of a reasonable allowance for board and lodging expenses incurred in respect of employment at a special work site: a) The duties of employment performed by the employee at the special work site are of a temporary nature (as a general rule, duties will be considered of a temporary nature if it can reasonably be expected that they will not provide continuous employment at a special work site beyond a period of two years); b) Throughout the period the duties of employment are performed at the special work site, the employee maintains at another location a self-contained domestic establishment as the employee's principal place of residence, which is available for the employee's occupancy and is not rented by the employee to any other person; c) The distance between the employee's principal place of residence and the special work site is such that the employee cannot be reasonably expected to commute daily; and d) The period the employee is required to be away from the principal place of residence at the special work site because of the duties of employment is at least 36 hours. ...

It is your opinion that, pursuant to subsection 118.5(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"), tuition fees paid by a student subsequent to the year of instruction could still be considered for purposes of the income tax credit under subsection 118.5(1) and as such, the University should consider these fees for purposes of issuing a T2202A for the year of instruction. ... Therefore, where eligible tuition fees are paid by a student in respect of a particular taxation year with a qualifying educational institution after the year of study, it is our view that these fees would still be considered eligible tuition fees for purposes of the issuance of a T2202A for the particular year. ...

We understand that to the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers involved none of the issues involved in this ruling is: (i) in an earlier return of a taxpayer identified in this document or of a related person, (ii) being considered by any Tax Services Office or Taxation Center of the CRA in connection with a tax return already filed, (iii) under objection by a taxpayer identified in this document or by a related person, (iv) before the courts or, if a judgment has been issued, the time limit for appeal to a higher court has not expired, (v) the subject of a ruling previously issued by the Income Tax Rulings Directorate to the taxpayer or a related person. ... COMMENTS We express no view in respect of nor have we considered the fair market value of above properties including shares or whether value of shares is derived principally from real property for purposes of Article XIII of the Convention. ...

You advise that to the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers referred to above, none of the issues involved in the ruling request: i. is in an earlier return of the taxpayers or related persons; ii. is being considered by a tax services office or taxation centre in connection with a previously filed return of the taxpayers or related persons; iii. is under objection by the taxpayers or related persons; iv. is before the courts or, if a judgment has been issued, the time limit for appeal to a higher court has not expired; and v. is the subject of a ruling previously considered by the Directorate. ...

We understand that, to the best of your knowledge and that of the Taxpayer, none of the issues involved in the ruling request is: (i) in an earlier return of the Taxpayer or a related person, (ii) being considered by a tax services office or taxation centre in connection with a previously filed tax return of the Taxpayer or a related person, (iii) under objection by the Taxpayer or a related person, (iv) before the courts, or (v) the subject of a ruling previously issued by the Directorate to the Taxpayer or a related person. ... Subject to paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act, the retiring allowance proposed will be considered reasonable for purposes of section 67 of the Act and will be deductible in computing business income of the Taxpayer for the year in which it is paid. ...