Search - considered

You describe two situations and request our views on whether the operations would be considered to be “farming”. ... The cultivation of crops in water and hydroponics are also considered farming activities. ... However, a taxpayer engaged in the business of logging would not be considered to be a farmer. ...

Principal Issues: Whether or not an entity formed under the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act is considered a corporation for purposes of the Income Tax Act. ... In accordance with Interpretation Bulletin IT-392, the Michigan LLC is considered to have a capital stock consisting of 100 issued shares and each owner of a beneficial interest in the LLC is then considered to own a number of shares proportionate to his beneficial interest in the LLC. ... On the other hand, where the mind and management of the LLC is situated in the U.S., resulting in the LLC not being considered a resident of Canada for purposes of the Act, it will not be considered as being a resident of either Contracting State for purposes of the Convention, if it is treated as a partnership for purposes of the Code. ...

It must be determined whether the amount received by the taxpayer is considered on account of income or capital. ... Where the amount relates to a particular asset that is sold, destroyed or abandoned as a consequence of the non-performance, that amount will be considered proceeds of disposition for purposes of determining the gain on the asset. ... It will always be a question of fact whether the amount received by a taxpayer is considered on account of income or capital. ...

It must be determined whether the amount received by the taxpayer is considered on account of income or capital. ... Where the amount relates to a particular asset that is sold, destroyed or abandoned as a consequence of the non-performance, that amount will be considered proceeds of disposition for purposes of determining the gain on the asset. ... It will always be a question of fact whether the amount received by a taxpayer is considered on account of income or capital. ...

Furthermore, the U.S. resident shareholder(s) of the S-corporation would not be considered to derive the dividend income received by the S-corporation. ... For U.S. income tax purposes, the shareholders of the S-corporation would not be considered to derive dividend income for U.S. income tax purposes and therefore would not satisfy the requirements of Article IV(6). ... Article IV(7)(b) provides that a dividend shall be considered not to be paid to or derived by a person who is a resident of the United States where the person is considered under Canadian income tax laws to have received the dividend from a Canadian-resident corporation, but by reason of the fiscal transparency of the Canadian-resident corporation under United States income tax laws, the treatment of the dividend under United States income tax laws is not the same as its treatment would be if the Canadian-resident dividend payer were not considered fiscally transparent. ...

You have asked us whether all four of these properties would be considered one property for the purpose of determining whether it is a "former business property" or whether each of the four properties would be considered to be "former business property" or whether a portion of each property would be considered to be a "former business property". ... Another important factor to be considered is the proportion of the amount of space rented in relation to the total area of the building. ... However, even if the operating company was paying rent for the parking space and those factors in IT-491 were considered, it would appear that each property would still be considered to be used principally to produce gross revenue that is rent and therefore be considered to be a "rental property" since paragraph 248(1)(c) of the definition of "former business property" specifically excludes land contiguous to the land that is subjacent to a rental property that is a parking area. ...

Unless specific facts indicate otherwise, the MIC would be considered to be investing its funds in units of a mutual fund trust. The MIC would generally be considered to be holding units in a trust and not the bonds, stocks, real property or other assets that are owned by the trust. 2. Depending on the particular facts, the MIC may be considered to be carrying on the business of the partnership which would be more activity that the mere investing of its funds. ...

Position: No Reasons: Where contract is entered into by annuitant for services to be provided to annuitant then considered expenses of annuitant not RRSP or RRIF trust. 963958 XXXXXXXXXX M.P. ... If this is the case, then the fees pertaining to the investment strategies relating to the self-directed RRSP or RRIF could not be considered premiums or gifts contributed to the particular plan or fund. The determination of whether investment counsel fees or a portion thereof would be considered expenses of a RRSP or RRIF trust is a question of fact that can only be determined after a review of all of the facts pertaining to each particular situation. ...

In accordance with Interpretation Bulletin IT-392, a Kentucky LLC is considered to have capital stock consisting of 100 issued shares and each owner of a beneficial interest in the Kentucky LLC is then considered to own a number of shares proportionate to his beneficial interest in the Kentucky LLC. Each amount distributed on account of profits by the Kentucky LLC to its owners will be considered dividends for the purpose of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. Where the mind and management of the Kentucky LLC is situated in the U.S., the Kentucky LLC will be considered resident in the United States for purposes of the Act. ...

Principal Issues: Will bank guarantee fees paid by a corporation to its owner/manager be considered earned income within the meaning assigned by subsection 146(1) of the Act? ... Therefore, guarantee fees would not be considered income from an office or employment for purposes of the definition of earned income. ... Consequently, guarantee fees would not be considered earned income within the meaning assigned by subsection 146(1) of the Act. ...