Search - considered

26 June 2019 Internal T.I. 2019-0791761I7- Participating employer in RPP-- summary under Subparagraph 147.2(2)(a)(vi) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 147.1- Subsection 147.1(2)- Paragraph 147.1(2)(a)- Subparagraph 147.2(2)(a)(vi) contributing employer who ceases to exist nonetheless considered to be an “employer [who] participates” Does the apportionment condition in s. 147.2(2)(a)(vi) apply where one of the employers ceases to have any involvement with the plan, e.g., because of bankruptcy, winding-up, dissolution, sale of business, or voluntary exit from the plan? After referencing the requirement in s. 147.2(2)(a)(vi), which “ensures that any unfunded liability associated with a participating employer, and thus the employer’s contributions in respect of that liability, are not excessive,” and the s. 147.2(2)(d) requirement that “there is a reasonable determination of each participating employer’s actuarial surplus,” CRA stated that in such situation: [T]he particular employer would nonetheless continue to be considered a participating employer …. ...

The Directorate went on to note that “Son also held contingent beneficial interests in the remaining … Estate [assets], which would only be realized if the other Children die without issue surviving” and that: …[I]t is unlikely that the FMV of Son’s contingent beneficial interests at the Time could result in him being considered a “majority-interest beneficiary” of Father’s Estate. … Accordingly, it is unlikely that the FMV of the total of Son’s respective income or capital interests in Father’s Estate could reasonably be considered to be greater than 50% of the FMV of all of the income or capital interests in Father’s Estate …. ...

CRA responded: [S]alary and wages paid to an employee retroactively in respect of a week in qualifying periods 1 to 4 can generally be considered eligible remuneration paid in respect of those weeks for purposes of the CEWS to the extent that the eligible remuneration reflects the actual amount paid in respect of the particular claim period. … However … where salary and wages are only reflected by journal entry as an expense by the employer with a corresponding credit to a due to shareholder loan account, such salary and wages are not considered eligible remuneration paid to an eligible employee for purposes of subsection 125.7(2). ...

Where the corporation expenses salary to the shareholder/employee by way of journal entry with a credit (increase) to the due to shareholder loan account, is the salary considered eligible remuneration? ... Similarly, salary and wages paid but returned to the corporation by the shareholder/employee as a capital contribution or as an amount re-loaned to the corporation would not be considered eligible remuneration …. ...

7 June 2021 Internal T.I. 2021-0880401I7- CERS- Lockdown Support Restricted Activities-- summary under Paragraph (f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(1)- Public Health Restriction- Paragraph (f) a CODID lockdown closing in-store shopping or seated restaurant dining can be a “public health restriction” notwithstanding curbside pickups or deliveries/take-out Regarding whether the “public health restriction” definition would apply where a retail store (“a Store”) in a shopping mall is required by a COVID lockdown to close in-person shopping but made sales online or by phone for curbside pickup or delivery, or where restaurants in the food court (“the Restaurants”) who continued to provide take-out service, the Directorate stated: [W]here a particular order or decision prohibits customers from physically entering a Store to shop, then “in-person shopping” activities could be considered restricted activities. ... Similarly, where a particular order or decision requires public seating areas of a shopping mall available to customers of the Restaurants in the food court to close, such that customers of the Restaurants are no longer permitted access to the seating area of the food court, the Restaurants’ “sit-down dining” activities could be considered restricted activities. ...

16 July 2021 Internal T.I. 2020-0872521I7- CERS- Qualifying property for rental income-- summary under Paragraph (b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(1)- Qualifying Rent Expense- Variable A- Paragraph (b) significant additional services transform rental income into income from services Would the owner of a qualifying property that operates a hotel, or other similar business such as a motel or a bed and breakfast, be considered to use its qualifying property primarily to earn rental income as described in para. ... CRA stated: Generally, any income earned from the use or occupation of a property or a right to use or occupy property is considered to be rental income. ...

After noting that under s. 45, as in the rest of the Act, the quoted reference would be to the beneficial rather than legal owner, CRA went on to note that a wife who legally was the co-owner of the home in question (which had been converted to rental use) could be considered to be a ½ beneficial owner of the house for these purposes even though her husband provided all the purchase funds and had reported all the rental income. ... It concluded: [I]f both spouses are considered to have beneficial ownership … they would both be required to file the election …. ...

Furthermore, for those who travelled using their own vehicles, a reasonable per-kilometre allowance payable by their employer would not be included in their income pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) by virtue of the exception in s. 6(1)(b)(vii.1), again because such travel would be considered to be in the course of their employment. However, in finding that the other travel allowances would not qualify under s. 6(1)(b)(vii), the Directorate stated: A workplace will only be considered an establishment of the employer if the employer is the owner or tenant of the workplace. … [T]he employees' travel is therefore not for the purpose of travelling away from the municipality and, where applicable, the metropolitan area where the employer's establishment was located. ...

The Directorate stated: [W]here an OEO Rebate is paid by an OEO Dealer to a unitholder in a trust, in the [above] circumstances … it is likely that the OEO Rebate would be considered to be in respect of the activities of the trust or in respect of an expense of the trust. In the result, subsection 12(2.1) would likely be considered to apply and the amount of the OEO Rebate included in the income of the trust pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(x). ...

The Directorate stated: [W]here an OEO Rebate is paid by an OEO Dealer to a unitholder in a trust, in the [above] circumstances … it is likely that the OEO Rebate would be considered to be in respect of the activities of the trust or in respect of an expense of the trust. In the result, subsection 12(2.1) would likely be considered to apply and the amount of the OEO Rebate included in the income of the trust pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(x). ...