Search - considered

26 January 1994 External T.I. 9401165- HEDGING TRANSACTIONS-- summary under Paragraph 108(2)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 108- Subsection 108(2)- Paragraph 108(2)(b) In response to a question on whether a foreign exchange forward contract would be considered to be a marketable security, RC indicated that such a determination is a question of fact and that "generally, a particular investment could be considered a marketable security if it can be converted readily into cash and it can easily be traded because a ready group of buyers exists and there is no legal or other impediments to its sale. ...

8 June 1995 External T.I. 9507325- REIMBURSEMENT TO RRSP OF MUTUAL FUND REDEMPTION FEES-- summary under Subsection 146(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 146- Subsection 146(5) Where a broker selling units of a mutual fund to an RRSP reimburses the RRSP for the redemption fee payable by it on redeeming a mutual fund previously held by it, the reimbursement will not be considered to be an advantage pursuant to s. 146(2)(c.4), will not constitute income to the annuitant and will not be considered to be a contribution to the RRSP by the annuitant. ...

., a helicopter or equipment) for a period of time could be considered a property and a donation of a right to use a property, depending on the facts in a particular case, could be considered a gift in kind. ...

5 January 1996 External T.I. 9514915- business carried on by partnership-- summary under Paragraph 111(5)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(5)- Paragraph 111(5)(a) general partner carries on partnership business Where a business carried on by a corporation subsequent to an acquisition of control of the corporation, is transferred to a partnership in which the corporation is a general partner, the corporation would normally be considered to be carrying on the business carried on by the partnership. ... An automobile manufactured by one manufacturer and an automobile manufactured by another manufacturer would ordinarily be considered to be "similar properties" for purposes of s. 111(5)(a)(ii). ...

All relevant factors surrounding a particular situation must be considered. The value assigned to portions of farmland by a professional appraiser at the time the property was acquired is a factor that could be considered in determining the portion of the ACB that is reasonable to assign to the disposed of part. ...

30 August 2001 External T.I. 2001-0093645 F- FRAIS IMPUTE A UN REER LORS D'UN RETRAIT-- summary under Subsection 146(8) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 146- Subsection 146(8) no annuitant benefit where RRSP bears an admin fee on a withdrawal In finding that no related benefit need be reported on the T4RSP form, CCRA stated: [A]dministrative fees charged to an RRSP on a partial withdrawal are not considered to be a benefit received from an RRSP. Those fees are considered an expense of the RRSP where the terms of the plan allow the trustee to levy such fees on the RRSP. ...

., from use as a principal residence to rental use) in a building of four units owned by the taxpayer, the four units would be considered as four separate properties for the purposes of the change-in-use rules in ss. 13(7)(a), (b) and 45(1)(a), rather than the building being considered a single property and the change-in-use rules in ss. 13(7)(d) and 45(1)(c) applying instead. ...

In confirming that for the purpose of applying s. 87(11)(b) to determine the cost of the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets to NewTarget2, (i) the TCC shares acquired by former Target shareholders will be "specified property" under s. 88(1)(c.4)(iii), and (ii) NewTarget will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Subco2 for the purpose of determining whether the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets were capital property owned by NewTarget at the time that Parent last acquired control of NewTarget, CRA stated: [W]hen interpreting subsection 88(4) in a particular situation, the corporation formed as a result of an amalgamation is deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, the predecessor relevant to that situation, having regard to all the circumstances including the provision to which subsection 88(4) is being applied. Therefore… we would apply subsection 88(4) such that the TCC shares issued to the former Target shareholders would be considered to be received as consideration for the acquisition of shares of the subsidiary, NewTarget, (because NewTarget is deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target) by TCC and Parent (which are, respectively, the taxable Canadian corporation and the parent referred to in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii)). ... CRA confirmed (similarly to the above analysis) that, because of the operation of s. 88(4), NewTarget2 will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Target for the purpose of the reference to "subsidiary" in subparagraph 88(1)(c.4)(iii); and that NewTarget2 will be considered to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, Subco2 for the purpose of determining whether the Keep Assets and the Sell Assets were capital property owned by NewTarget2 at the time Parent last acquired control of NewTarget2. ...

CRA stated: Any capital gain realized by Forhold on a disposition of its 90% interest in P1 would be excluded from its foreign accrual property income ("FAPI") because the interest in P1 would be considered "excluded property" as defined in subsection 95(1)…. ... The Department commented as follows: This position is consistent with the definition of "excluded property" in paragraph 95(1)(a.1) in that it was considered necessary to enact, for purposes of paragraphs 95(1)(d) and 95(4)(a) as they apply to paragraph 95(1)(a.1), the deeming provisions in subparagraphs 95(1)(a.1)(iv) and (v) in order that where a foreign affiliate had an interest in a partnership and the shares of the capital stock of a corporation in which all or substantially all the assets were used in an active business were partnership property such shares could be considered excluded property. ... CRA stated: For the purpose of the excluded property rules P1 and P2 would be considered non-resident corporations. ...

In determining whether its income from the rental partnerships was income from a specified investment business, CRA indicated that although each full-time employee of a particular partnership will be considered to be a full-time employee of each corporate partner, "each partnership must be considered separately when determining whether a partner's income is from a specified investment business. ...