Search - considered

Regarding Regs. 1102(5)(a)(i) and (ii), it stated: In light of the meaning of the terms "building" and "structure" in paragraph 1 of IT-79R3, a Shell, which is a structure with walls and a roof, may generally be considered a building or other structure for purposes of subsection 1102(5). Consequently, the Taxpayer is not considered to have erected a building, i.e., the Shell, for purposes of subsection 1102(5) where that building was erected by another taxpayer. ...

CRA considered that ACo could not effectively extend the normal reassessment period pursuant to a request by it to extend the s. 150(1) filing deadline for its 2011 to 2013 returns under s. 220(3). The Directorate then noted that the normal reassessment periods started running with the arbitrary assessments and that the “CRA has concluded that the failure to file a return of income after being requested to do so under subsection 150(2) could be considered a misrepresentation [or] wilful default.” ...

After noting that the “the term ‘cost’ includes the full cost of acquiring the property and incorporates all costs that are necessary to put the property into a position to be used,” and that “In general, for a property to be considered to be acquired, an element of beneficial ownership must exist (possession, use, risk, and control,” the Directorate noted that, having regard to s. 127(32), the particular property that was acquired from a transferor appeared to be the trees, for which a stumpage fee was paid and that, conversely, the logs did not appear to so qualify as they were obtained (out of the trees) “as a result of third-party services rendered in respect of the trees.” In addition, since no acquisition of property occurs in connection with manufacturing salary and overhead costs, these amounts cannot be considered an amount paid by the taxpayer to acquire the particular property from a transferor of the particular property. ...

., Meyer] would lend support to the position that absent any evidence to the contrary the tax paid to the Japanese tax authorities was voluntary and as such, should not be considered to be a "tax" within the meaning of subsection 126(1). … [A] taxable capital gain resulting from a deemed disposition of property is considered to be Canadian-source income, which therefore cannot be included in the foreign non-business income for purposes of claiming a FTC under subsection 126(1). ...

., goodwill) had been amortized, the amortization taken on the stepped-up tax basis under IRC 338(h)(10) should be added to the earnings amount pursuant to Reg. 5907(2)(f) (or in the alternative should not be considered in computing the earnings amount determined under s. ... (Conversely, such amortization would not "be in respect of an ‘expenditure made' and, therefore, could not result in an add back pursuant to paragraph 5907(2)(b)" (para. 23)) To the extent the disposition of intangible property resulted in income from an active business, the increase in tax basis as the result of the IRC 338(h)(10) election (net of any accumulated amortization taken thereon), of intangible property disposed of other than goodwill may be added to the earnings amount pursuant to Reg. 5907(2)(b) and the net stepped-up tax basis under IRC 338(h)(10) of the goodwill disposed of should be added to the earnings amount under Reg. 5907(2)(f) (or, in the alternative, should not be considered in computing the earnings amount determined under s. ...

After noting that s. 94.1 will apply in computing the FAPI of BCo if its shares of CCo may reasonably be considered to derive their value, directly or indirectly primarily from portfolio investments of CCo or any other non-resident entity, CRA stated: The test is not whether the shares of CCo are "portfolio investments" to BCo, but whether the shares of CCo (i.e. the "non-resident entity" that we are testing) derive their value primarily from portfolio investments of "that entity" (i.e. ... After implying that Opco likely would not be considered to be a non-portfolio investment ("in its 1984 federal Budget, the government stated that the rules in section 94.1 will not apply to investments in non-resident entities whose principal business is a bona fide active business"), CRA commented on the application of the tax avoidance test in s. 94.1(1)(d): If Canco held the Opco shares directly, and Opco were a foreign affiliate of Canco earning active business income, dividends paid to Canco by Opco would be deductible by Canco under paragraph 113(1)(a). ...

It is arguable that the acquisition of the … MRPS is not considered part of the ordinary course of business carried on by [Canco 2], but rather the acquisition may be considered an isolated and special transaction that is not part of a course of conduct that involves repeated dealings of a similar nature. … [I]t is also important to consider whether the arrangement in the current case, at its core, more closely resembles a debt financing arrangement or a capital investment. ...

However, where a repayment was conditional upon achieving a projected sales level, the loan would not be considered to be unconditionally repayable. ...

28 July 1992 Memorandum 921859 (April 1993 Access Letter, p. 151, ¶C180-136)-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt A taxpayer is not considered to have "paid" interest on a loan owing by him to a charitable foundation by virtue only of journal entries being recorded in his ledgers and those of the foundation. ...

28 July 1992 Memorandum 921859 (April 1993 Access Letter, p. 151, ¶C180-136)-- summary under Subsection 189(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 189- Subsection 189(1) A taxpayer is not considered to have "paid" interest on a loan owing by him to a charitable foundation by virtue only of journal entries being recorded in his ledgers and those of the foundation. ...