Search - considered

Should Individual A be considered financially dependent on his father at the time of his father's death so that amounts could be transferred from the father's RRSP as a refund of premiums? CRA stated: Some of the factors which may be considered in making [the] financial dependency determination include the income of the child from all sources, the cost of living and the ability of the child to provide for self-support, and any support received by the child from other persons. … [I]f a child is living with another individual who is providing support for the child at the time of the annuitant's death, the child would not be considered to be financially dependent upon the deceased for support at that time. ... Consequently … Individual A would not be considered to be financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death for the purpose of a deduction under paragraph 60(l)….. ...

(b)(ii) of “foreign resource property” in s. 248(1), that “for such mineral right to be considered specified foreign property, the right would have to be tangible property, which is understood to include real property such as land and rights issuing out of, annexed to and exercisable within or about land,” and that the mineral right would be considered a tangible property coming within s. (b) of 233.3(1) – “specified foreign property,” CRA stated: We wish to clarify that a specified foreign property can include inter alia tangible or intangible property…., real property can include… intangible property…[and] a mineral right would likely be considered an intangible property. Therefore…a mineral right situated outside Canada would be considered a specified foreign property pursuant to paragraph (a)…. ...

Would the allowances received be considered as reasonable and, therefore, excluded from employment income under s. 6(1)(b)(vii)? ... In addition… the costs of showers are also considered to be deductible as accommodation expenses where a transport employee sleeps in the cab of the truck rather than in a hotel. … [A]n allowance for accommodation expenses calculated exclusively on the basis of distance, time or other criteria will not be considered reasonable if it does not represent an estimate of the cost of accommodation that may be incurred by the employee during the travel that generated entitlement to the allowance. … [W]here an employee sleeps in the truck cab, it is unlikely that the allowances for accommodation expenses in the three scenarios provided will be considered reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b). ...

11 December 1995 Internal T.I. 9518687- MEALS AND BEVERAGE-- summary under Paragraph 67.1(2)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 67.1- Subsection 67.1(2)- Paragraph 67.1(2)(e) The 'place of business' refers to the location where these employees are considered to be employed, i.e., the employee's normal place of employment and not where the food is being served or at a temporary work location albeit a place of business of the employer.... In the case of professional athletes such as baseball or hockey players, in our view, they would be considered to be employed at the home office of the Club rather than being employed at each and every facility in which they play. Similarly, in the case of actors or film producing employees, each and every filming site may be a place of business but not necessarily the place to which these individuals are considered to be employed. ...

The Tax Services Office reassessed, with the reassessments being buttressed by a secondary position that Delaware-LLLP should be considered as a corporation. The Directorate indicated that, consistently with 2016-0642051C6, a Delaware LLLP generally should be considered as a corporation given “the existence of a separate legal personality that is recognized under the DRULPA – meaning the full legal capacity to acquire and own property, to sue and be sued, to carry on their own activities and to incur liabilities of their own – and the limitation of liability afforded to all of its members.” However, in light of the transitional relief being afforded to Delaware LLLPs so that, in the taxation years involved, Delaware LLLPs would be considered as a “partnership for the purposes of the application of the Act to CanGP and CanLP’s XXXX…” it was suggested that the secondary position be dropped so as “to be consistent with the intended treatment of other taxpayer files being considered.” ...

In finding that this did not give rise to a taxable benefit, CRA indicated that: "for the purposes of 15(1) we have generally not considered that a benefit is conferred on a shareholder by reason of the making of a loan to that shareholder…[except] where, for example, there is no reasonable expectation of repayment of the loan amount" furthermore, applying s. 15(1) also is problematic as the "loan has been made to Investco, which is not, itself, a shareholder of Holdco" "since the amount advanced by Holdco to Investco was a "loan", there is no "payment" that would be considered to have been made that would allow the provisions of s. 56(2) to apply to include the loan amount in the income of Mr. A" unlike Massicotte, the case "does not involve a holder of shares of a parent corporation obtaining a benefit from a subsidiary corporation" s. 246(1) "does not permit characterizing a loan to a corporation as, instead, one made to the individual who controls that corporation in order to then calculate a benefit under paragraph 80.4(2" As there have been no relevant changes since Cooper, s. 105(1) "would not be considered favourably as a ground for including a foregone interest benefit in the income of Mr. ...

27 May 2009 Internal T.I. 2009-0310751I7 F- Usufruit d'un immeuble avant 1991-- summary under Subsection 248(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(3) re a usufruct created prior to 1991, the usufructuary was considered to continue as the beneficial owner In 1985, an individual sold a building to his children on which he had reserved for himself, under the deed of sale, the right of usufruct or right of habitation. Should the individual be considered to have continued to be the property’s owner at the time of his death in 2007 despite the transfer to the children? ... However, as stated in paragraph 3 of the former version of Interpretation Bulletin IT-437 dated September 10, 1979, a person who is usufructuary in respect of real property by virtue of the former version of subsection 248(3), is considered to be the beneficial owner of real property. ...

30 May 2003 Internal T.I. 2003-0000117 F- ALLOCATION AUTOMOBLE VERSÉE-- summary under Paragraph 96(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1)- Paragraph 96(1)(a) fees, and usually "loan" interest, paid to a partner will be treated as draws rather than deductible expenses Where payments such as interest payments on a loan, management fees or bonuses are paid by a partnership to a partner, should they be considered a distribution (reducing the ACB of the partner’s interest) or as income to the partner? ... Such payments are considered as distributions to the partners. The partners will therefore be required to make an adjustment to the ACB of their interest pursuant to subparagraph 53(2)(c)(v). … [I]nterest paid to a partner … will generally receive the same tax treatment as management fees or bonuses. However, there may be special circumstances where such a payment would be considered an expense of the partnership, meaning that the interest would relate to a debt to the partner and not a contribution of capital. ...

After noting that “the weekly blood tests in this case would likely be considered an activity that would be included in the time spent administering therapy” since the “weekly blood tests were required to ensure that the proper Phe level was being maintained,” the Directorate stated: It is … a question of fact whether the determination of a specific activity, for example a weekly blood test, can be included in the time spent administering therapy as described in paragraph 118.1(1)(a.1) of the Act. … What would be considered essential to one person’s impairment may not be considered essential to another. ...

The Directorate stated: [B]oth are considered corporations for the purpose of the Act. … In such case, the CRA would generally rely on the relevant foreign corporate or company law and the details of the plan of conversion to determine whether there is a continuity of existence on the Conversion. Under the relevant provisions of [the two statutes] the Conversion is not deemed to constitute a wind-up or dissolution of [the company, and it] is considered to be the same entity as and a continuation of [the other]. Provided that the plan of conversion does not provide for [it] to cease to exist, it is our view that, for the purposes of the Act, [it] is considered to be the same entity that it was prior to the Conversion. ...