Search - considered

Regarding whether the retroactive periodic support amounts would be deductible, CRA indicated that although the order, pursuant to the court’s legislative authority to do so, made the amounts payable retroactively on a periodic basis during the stipulated period (2013 to 2018), "payments made before the date of a court order or written agreement cannot be considered to be paid under the order or agreement.” ...

22 December 2022 Internal T.I. 2020-0856411I7 F- SSUC/CEWS-– Rémunération admissible-- summary under Eligible Remuneration Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(1)- Eligible Remuneration eligible remuneration for each qualifying period for CEWS purposes includes additional payments for vacation and sick leave pay In confirming that mandatory vacation, statutory holiday and sick leave pay provided for in the various collective agreements in the Quebec construction industry are eligible remuneration for the purposes of s. 125.7(2), when paid to an eligible employee by an eligible entity, the Directorate stated: Amounts paid by an eligible entity to an eligible employee as sick leave, vacation pay or statutory holidays are generally considered to be part of the employee's regular pay, salary or wages and to be eligible remuneration within the meaning of that term in subsection 125.7(1). … For CEWS purposes, when the payment is added by the employer, which is an eligible entity, to the basic salary or wages included in each paycheck of an eligible employee, we will consider that the eligible entity has paid the payment to an eligible employee in respect of the same week as the related salary or wages are paid. ...

Treaty requiring that the tax be paid on income “arising” in the U.S. and stated: Employment income is generally considered sourced (“arisen”) in the country where the cross-border employee performs the duties of employment giving rise to such income. ...

After noting that the instructions provided by CRA both on the application for the CEWS or CRHP benefit and the CRA website indicated that a separate application must be filed for each RP account, the Directorate indicated that such separate applications aggregating to an overall deemed overpayment for a qualifying period should be considered to constitute an application for the qualifying period in the prescribed form and manner as required by para. ...

8 November 2022 Internal T.I. 2022-0941391I7- (Re)determination of section 125.7 applications-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(1)- Qualifying Entity- Paragraph (a) application for the benefit could be made on an RP by RP account basis After noting that the instructions provided by CRA both on the application for the CEWS or CRHP benefit and the CRA website indicated that a separate application must be filed for each RP account, the Directorate indicated that such separate applications aggregating to an overall deemed overpayment for a qualifying period should be considered to constitute an application for the qualifying period in the prescribed form and manner as required by para. ...

In rejecting this argument, the Directorate indicated that by virtue of s. 87(2)(g.4), Aco was considered following the Winding-up to be a continuation of Amalco, and to own the Subject Shares and, given that under s. 251.1(4)(a), a person is affiliated with itself, Aco as the transferor continued to be affiliated with the person (Aco in its capacity of a continuation of Amalco and Bco) who was the deemed owner of the Subject Shares. ...

CRA rejected Aco’s argument that on the winding-up, Amalco ceased to be affiliated with the transferor (Aco) so as to trigger the suspended loss pursuant to s. 40(3.4)(b)(i): by virtue of s. 87(2)(g.4), Aco was considered following the winding-up to be a continuation of Amalco, and to own the Subject Shares and, given that under s. 251.1(4)(a), a person is affiliated with itself, Aco as the transferor continued to be affiliated with the person (Aco as the continuation of Amalco) who was the deemed owner of the Subject Shares. ...

Consequently, the amount of Part XIII tax paid by Canco on behalf of Sisterco would not be included in computing the income of Sisterco under subsections 15(1) or (2) because, respectively, on the one hand, Sisterco is not a shareholder of Canco and, on the other hand, Sisterco would not be considered to a have received a loan from or become indebted to Canco. ...

However: [T]he amount of Part XIII tax paid by Canco on behalf of Sisterco would not be included in computing the income of Sisterco under subsections 15(1) or (2) because, respectively, on the one hand, Sisterco is not a shareholder of Canco and, on the other hand, Sisterco would not be considered to a have received a loan from or become indebted to Canco. ...

The Canadian Corp took the position that, as US Corp was a non-resident corporation which was not liable for tax in Canada, it was not a “taxpayer” under the Act in light of Oceanspan, so that it could not be considered to have a “capital property” (whose definition references a taxpayer), as required for the application of s. 13(7)(e)(ii). ...