Search - considered

26 November 2014 External T.I. 2014-0551641E5 F- Winding-up and subsection 42(1)-- summary under Section 42 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 42 corporation permitted to claim litigation loss following effective time of winding-up In accordance with IT-126R2, para. 5(b), a corporation is considered to have "been wound up" on the basis that it has been liquidated and the only reasons for not yet filing articles of dissolution is outstanding litigation. CRA considers that if the corporation subsequently settles the litigation by making a payment that otherwise qualifies as a deemed capital loss under s. 42(1)(b)(ii), it can claim that capital loss in the year of payment thereof (i.e., after it is considered for s. 88 purposes to have been wound up). ...

26 November 2014 External T.I. 2014-0551641E5 F- Winding-up and subsection 42(1)-- summary under Subsection 88(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 88- Subsection 88(1) effective time of winding-up not delayed by potential litigation liability In accordance with IT-126R2, para. 5(b), a corporation is considered to have "been wound up" on the basis that it has been liquidated and the only reasons for not yet filing articles of dissolution is outstanding litigation. CRA considers that if the corporation subsequently settles the litigation by making a payment that otherwise qualifies as a deemed capital loss under s. 42(1)(b)(ii), it can claim that capital loss in the year of payment thereof (i.e., after it is considered for s. 88 purposes to have been wound up). ...

Would the corporation be considered to have been wound up at the end of the year in which it distributed its assets for purposes of s. 88(2)? ... Thus, if the conditions enumerated therein are satisfied…the corporation can be considered to have been wound up on [that] date…. ...

Where such a plan is funded, the arrangement would generally be considered an RCA. However, where the plan is unfunded, the arrangement is not considered to be an RCA. ...

Would it be considered to have disposed of the property for its fair market value for purposes of s. 55(3)(a)(i)(B)? ... In such a case, this disposition will not be considered to be an event contemplated under subparagraph 55(3)(a)(i). ...

13 May 2014 External T.I. 2014-0525491E5- Emigration to Poland- Various tax considerations-- summary under Article 18 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 18 lump sum RRSP commutation not eligible for reduced withholding under Polish Treaty As "pension" was not defined in the Canada-Poland Treaty, s. 5(a) of the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act applied, so that all of the RPP, RRSP, OAS, CPP and QPP payments made to the Taxpayer (a former Canadian who became a Polish resident) were to be considered "pensions" for the purposes of the Treaty. In light of the definition of "periodic pension payments" in. 5(a): a payment from an RRSP before maturity or in full or partial commutation of the retirement income under an RRSP…is not considered to be a "periodic pension payment" [and] such a payment to the Taxpayer would not be eligible for a reduced rate of withholding tax under the Treaty…. ...

In CEGEP, if the 2012 winter session were to begin in January and end in May, it must be considered that the student was enrolled in an educational program for 5 months. Similarly, at the university, when the 2012 winter session was scheduled to begin in January and end in April, it must be considered that the student was enrolled in an educational program for 4 months [and similarly for the fall 2012 session]. ...

11 July 2016 External T.I. 2015-0592681E5 F- RRIF Death of an annuitant-- summary under Refund of Premiums Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 146- Subsection 146(1)- Refund of Premiums consequence of death if named as beneficiary in RRSP contract As part of a background discussion, CRA stated: One of the conditions for an amount to be considered as a refund of premiums as defined in subsection 146(1) requires that the amount be paid to an individual who was, immediately before the annuitant's death: • the Spouse if the annuitant died before the maturity of the RRSP, • a child, or grandchild, of the annuitant, who was financially dependent on the annuitant (collectively, an "Eligible Recipient".) ... If this person is an Eligible Recipient, the amount will be considered as a refund of premiums, without any further formality. ...

Is Parent2 considered a "supporting person." CRA responded that its: practice is to consider that if a person has lived with the taxpayer, the person is considered to have resided with the taxpayer for purposes of the child care expenses deduction. … Parent1 does not have to consider Parent2 when completing Form T778 as Parent2 is not a "supporting person" for purposes of the child care expenses deduction. ...

4 April 2011 External T.I. 2010-0388741E5 F- Société quittant le Canada-- summary under Subsection 250(5.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 250- Subsection 250(5.1) no requirement to file Canadian returns following continuance In the course of a general discussion of the continuance of a corporation from Canada to Europe, CRA stated: A corporation that is continued may, depending on the circumstances, be considered to have ceased to reside in Canada. Indeed, under subsection 250(5.1), a corporation continued in another country would be considered to be incorporated in the other country from the date of continuance, and would no longer be deemed to be resident in Canada under paragraph 250(4) from that date. ...