Search - considered

Position: The payment will be considered an employment benefit and taxable to the employee under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. However, the payment will not be considered the payment of a premium to the RRSP, nor a gift to an RRSP for purposes of Part X.1 of the Act. ... However, the payment will not be considered the payment of a premium to the RRSP, nor a gift to an RRSP for purposes of Part X.1 of the Act. ...

Reasons: Two years is considered to be a reasonable guideline for employment that purports to be a temporary assignment. ... The two years is considered to be a reasonable guideline for employment that purports to be a temporary assignment. ... Accordingly, we have not considered your request further. We trust that these comments will be of assistance. ...

Antle (613) 957-2102 September 10, 2002 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Reimbursement of Child Care Expenses This is further to your letter of August 19, 2002, concerning whether the reimbursement of child care expenses by an employer would be considered a taxable employment benefit. ... Where additional child care expenses are incurred because an employee is required by the employer to travel out of town on employment-related business, then the reimbursement of these additional child care costs will not be considered a taxable employment benefit. ... In any other case, the reimbursement of the child care costs would be considered a taxable employment benefit to the employees. ...

For the purposes of the IRC, NRco is considered to be organized under the laws of Delaware by virtue of having been continued in that state, although it has not been considered to have been incorporated in Delaware. As a result, NRco is considered to be a domestic corporation for the purposes of the IRC and is, thus, liable to pay tax in the U.S. on its worldwide income. ... It is our opinion that under the fact scenario described above, NRco is considered to be a resident of the U.S. for the purposes of the Convention. ...

Position: In the circumstances described, it is our view that the right to the additional amount would be considered a separate property having an adjusted cost base of zero. ... You describe the following situation: A taxpayer sold farm property (the " farm property") in 1990, and claimed the capital gains exemption, since the property was considered qualified farm property. ... In the circumstances described, it is our view that the right to the additional amount would be considered a separate property having an adjusted cost base of zero. ...

The fact that the liquidation is required to fund the annuitant's participation in the LLP would not result in the commissions being considered costs incurred by the annuitant. Consequently, these costs would not be considered in determining the amount received by an individual under the LLP as they are expenses of the RRSP. ... In this situation, the annuitant would be considered to have received $10,000 and not $10,526. ...

Accordingly, any income or expense from the swap would not be considered to be derived from the associated hedged assets or the stream of income therefrom. ... It is also our view that any income earned or expense incurred from the swap would not be considered to be derived from the associated assets for which it may be designed to hedge. Accordingly, for the purpose of subparagraph 204.4(2)a)(v) of the Act, the income from the swap would not be considered to be derived from the associated assets. ...

Principal Issues: Whether Hong Kong is considered part of China for purposes of paragraph 95(2)(a.1) Position: Yes Reasons: As a result of the unification of Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China, there is no reason, for purposes of paragraph 95(2)(a.1), to distinguish the two. XXXXXXXXXX 1999-001460 Tim Kuss February 22, 2001 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Paragraph 95(2)(a.1) Technical Interpretation This is in reply to your letter requesting whether Hong Kong is considered to be part of China for purposes of paragraph 95(2)(a.1) of the Income Tax Act. ... In our view, as a result of the unification of Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong would be considered part of China for purposes of paragraph 95(2)(a.1). ...

Is the income earned by a farmer under a FIT / microFIT contract considered farming income? ... Would the income earned by a farmer under items 1 & 2 be considered incidental to farming income? ... When these factors are considered in the context of the FIT / microFIT Programs, it is our view that the income under the scenario described above would not be considered incidental to a farming business. ...

You have asked whether the RV park would be considered to be a replacement property for purposes of the replacement property rules of the Act. ... To be considered a replacement property, the particular property must meet all the requirements outlined in the definition in subsection 44(5) of the Act. ... A taxpayer who changes from one business category to another but continues to deal in the same product will normally be considered to be in a similar business. ...