Search - considered

The bump will not be available to Childco on the winding-up of Parentco because Parent (and, thus, Childco under s. 88(1)(d.2)) will be considered to have acquired control of Parentco at the time of its incorporation (and before the issuance of any shares of Parentco to Parent), at which time Parentco will not hold the marketable securities. ...

If XCo is an S-Corp, although CRA has taken the position that any Canadian source income received by an S-Corp may be considered to be derived instead by its shareholders pursuant to Art. ...

29 May 2009 External T.I. 2008-0301391E5- EBITDA-- summary under Participating debt interest Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 212- Subsection 212(3)- Participating debt interest acceptable for interest rate to reduce based on improved debt coverage ratio Where (in order to reflect the resulting increased credit worthiness of the borrower) the interest on a loan decreases as the ratio of debt to EBITDA of the Canadian borrower decreases, such interest will not be considered to be participating debt interest. ...

CRA stated: [A] partnership would generally be considered a taxpayer for the purposes of the subsection 97(2) rollover and could therefore rely on that subsection to the extent that the conditions set out therein are satisfied. ...

. … Under subparagraph 2(a) [of Article X], the S-Corp would be considered to own the shares of Canco owned by the US LLC.... ...

The exemption also will apply where there are taxable sales of butterflied property to an arm's length third party, or taxable sales of investment property from one transferee to another unless the result of the taxable sales is that one or more transferees may reasonably be considered to have been wholly or partially cashed out. ...

CRA responded: An equity-linked investment by an individual such as the one described in your letter is generally considered a prescribed debt obligation pursuant to paragraph 7000(1)(d) of the Regulations such that an amount of interest is calculated pursuant to paragraph 7000(2)(d)…. ...

Consequently, and despite the Tremblay decision, the CRA intends to continue to challenge surplus stripping situations that are considered abusive, including those in the form of "tuck under" transactions, in particular by reviewing the potential application of subsections 84(2) and 245(2) in particular situations. ...

Although the option may be TCP it is not considered a "share". ...

CRA stated: In summary, a non-resident who presents a web site to its Canadian customers may be considered to carry on business in Canada through a [permanent establishment] where all of the following conditions are met: the host server is located in Canada, the business is being carried on, wholly or in part, through the operation of the web site on that server, the host server is at the non-resident's disposal, the host server is more or less permanently linked to a geographical location in Canada, and the web site is hosted by the particular computer server on more than merely a temporary or tentative basis. ...