Search - considered

After noting that it could be considered that such fees were non-deductible pursuant to s. 18(1)(a), the Directorate went on to discuss s. 67, stating: The position taken at [85 CR- Q.18], that the CCRA considers fees paid by a professional to a genuine management company that is related to be reasonable if they do not exceed 115% of the costs of such services, does not apply in cases where the company is merely the professional's agent. ...

[I]n accordance with the definition of depreciable property in subsection 13(21) of the Act, a taxpayer will be considered entitled to a deduction under paragraph 20(1)(a), despite the fact that the Regulations may have reduced the CCA claimed by the taxpayer to NIL for the period of ownership of the rental property. ...

In finding that such sum was not deductible to Monsieur pursuant to s. 60(b) and was not to be included in Madame's income pursuant to s. 56(1)(b), CCRA referred to its position in IT-530, para. 22 that a lump sum payment is not considered to be a support amount (as defined in s. 56.1(4)) where it is a lump sum payment made to obtain a release from a liability imposed by an order or agreement, whether such liability be in respect of arrears of maintenance payments, future payments, or both, and stated: [T]he lump sum payment discharged Monsieur from his future obligation to pay periodic allowances as well as from his obligation in respect of arrears. … Monsieur was in fact released from any future obligation to pay support under the written agreement, since Madame was obliged to reimburse him for any subsequent support payments. ...

The position of the taxpayer that “a share of the capital stock of a corporation that has been disposed of must first be held by an affiliated person at the end of the period ending 30 days after its disposition as non-depreciable capital property before the deemed ownership of a share of the capital stock of a corporation in paragraph 40(3.5)(c) can be considered” did not make sense. ...

5 September 2018 Internal T.I. 2017-0698241I7- Interpretation of subsection 93(4)-- summary under Subsection 93(2.01) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 93- Subsection 93(2.01) s. 93(2.01) applied to capital loss resulting from s. 94(3) basis bump But for s. 94(3), a Canadian corporation (ACo) would have realized a capital loss of $1 million on the liquidation and dissolution of a wholly-owned non-resident subsidiary (FA1) which, in turn, held FA2 and FA3.After the Directorate found that s. 94(3) applied to deny the loss and add it to the ACB to ACo of the shares of FA2 and FA3, it then considered the question: If the portion of such denied loss added to the ACB of the FA2 shares under s. 93(4)(b) was $50,000 (resulting in ACo’s ACB of the FA2 shares becoming $100,000 (as otherwise determined under s. 88(3)) + $50,000 = $150,000), would the s. 93(2.01) rules determine ACo’s loss on the disposition of the FA2 shares? ...

., from the time of the sale forward, the contribution is considered to have never occurred). ...

Although it included its “out of Canada net premiums” (“OCNP”) in income, it has not made any allocation under Reg. 403(4) as in its view this effectively allocated the OCNP to the provinces in proportion to the net premiums written in the provinces, which it considered to be a reasonable allocation method. ...

Headquarters indicated that such dividend was subject to Part IV tax in the hands of Holdco because the time at which it was considered to have received the s. 104(19) dividend (the calendar year end of the Trust) was in the taxation year of Holdco (commencing on July 1, 2017) throughout which Opco was no longer connected to Holdco, stating: [T]he amount designated to the beneficiary by a trust in accordance with subsection 104(19) is deemed to be received as a dividend by the beneficiary of the trust at the end of the taxation year of the trust in which the trust received the dividend. ...

In responding affirmatively, CRA stated: [W]here there is a causal link between the FAPI earned by an FA and the taxpayer's investment in the capital stock of that FA, and where the shares have been acquired by the taxpayer directly from the FA, the adjustment attributable to FAPI arising from the assessment or reassessment can reasonably be considered to have been made as a result of a transaction (the investment in the FA) between the taxpayer and a related non-resident corporation (the FA). … [T]he reassessments would be attributable to FAPI arising directly from the contribution by the Taxpayer of the Marketable Securities to ForeignCo which, in our view, would be a "transaction" between Holdco and ForeignCo referred to in subparagraph 152(4)(b)(iii) that it would be reasonable to consider as relating to the reassessments for purposes of subparagraph 152(4.01)(b)(iii). ...

In responding “yes”, CRA stated: [W]here there is a causal link between the FAPI earned by an FA and the taxpayer's investment in the capital stock of that FA, and where the shares have been acquired by the taxpayer directly from the FA, the adjustment attributable to FAPI arising from the assessment or reassessment can reasonably be considered to have been made as a result of a transaction (the investment in the FA) between the taxpayer and a related non-resident corporation (the FA). … [T]he reassessments would be attributable to FAPI arising directly from the contribution by the Taxpayer of the Marketable Securities to ForeignCo which … would be a "transaction" between Holdco and ForeignCo referred to in subparagraph 152(4)(b)(iii) that it would be reasonable to consider as relating to the reassessments for purposes of subparagraph 152(4.01)(b)(iii). ...