Search - considered

HMRC considered that the charge was not a tax on income and, thus, could be imposed on a Canadian resident notwithstanding Art. 18 of the Canada-UK Treaty. ...

After finding that the charge, even though collected by way of deduction against pension payments made to a Canadian-resident pension plan member, did not qualify for a foreign tax credit, CRA went on to find that such deduction did not have the effect of reducing the pension income of the member pursuant to s. 56(1)(a)(i), stating: Although the Charge may be deducted by a pension scheme administrator from a pension payment, the recipient of the pension payment will normally be considered to have received the gross amount of the payment for purposes of the Act where such amount is a superannuation or pension benefit and must include the full amount in computing the recipient’s income for Canadian tax purposes. ...

In this regard, CRA noted: [T]he expenditure of construction costs may be considered the acquisition of depreciable property that is a “building or structure”. ...

CRA stated: If the partnership pays the foreign tax on behalf of the partner or the foreign tax is withheld on behalf of the partner in accordance with foreign law from the foreign income paid to the partnership, such amount would be considered [for purposes of s. 53(2)(c)(v)] to be received by the partner on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, a distribution of the partner’s share of the partnership profits or partnership capital. ...

CRA stated: If the partnership pays the foreign tax on behalf of the partner or the foreign tax is withheld on behalf of the partner in accordance with foreign law from the foreign income paid to the partnership, such amount would be considered [for purposes of s. 53(2)(c)(v)] to be received by the partner on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, a distribution of the partner’s share of the partnership profits or partnership capital. ...

Furthermore, because the Second Parking Space is on separate title from the Condo, it is our view that the Condo and parking spaces must be owned by the same person to be considered as a component of the housing unit. ...

Regarding the position of the employee that the retiring allowance should be treated as a qualifying amount and that a specified portion related to the employee’s 1999 taxation year, CCRA indicated that general damages for humiliation and anguish, as contrasted to loss of income, could not be considered to relate to an eligible taxation year as the “individual was not entitled to receive those amounts in taxation years prior to the year in which the order was made or the settlement reached,” and then stated: [T]he amount of the retiring allowance would not be a qualifying amount for the application of section 110.2 unless it is shown that the payment made to your former employee represents an amount paid pursuant to a contract that terminates legal proceedings and that it is paid as or in settlement of damages for the loss of the former employee’s employment, established on the basis of the income that the individual would otherwise have been entitled to receive. ...

If an Employee is not required to do so, but performs the Employee’s duties on a reserve for reasons of convenience, the Employee will not be considered to have performed the Employee’s duties on a reserve for the purposes of the Guidelines. ...

For example, if the corporation had taken out an additional disability insurance policy that provided a higher level of benefits for the employee who is the majority shareholder compared to the level of benefits for the other employee in the group, such a policy would probably not be considered a component of a group insurance plan, but rather an individual disability insurance policy. ...

., “a person to whom a benefit is conferred by the corporation because they are being considered to become a shareholder of the corporation.”) ...