Search - considered

The individual is free to use the amounts for her own personal benefit and is considered to be an employee. ... We also wish to mention that we have considered a letter dated December 3, 1989 which was included in the submission from your division. ... These amounts are not considered to be received "for the benefit of the cared-for individual. ...

Principal Issues:-Whether the sale of an insurance book would be considered to be the sale of an "eligible capital property". ... You have asked us whether the sale of an insurance book would be considered to be a sale of "eligible capital property" and whether the definition of the term "capital property" under the Income Tax Act (the "Act") includes "eligible capital property". ... We have considered the views expressed by the taxpayer's representative as outlined in their letter of August 31, 1994, and your views as expressed by XXXXXXXXXX in her letter of December 21, 1994 concerning the case at hand. ...

X can be considered a "child" of Mr. A, although he is no longer married to Mr. ... X would be considered to meet the 2-year gross-revenue test in subparagraph (vi) if in at least 2 years while Mr. ... X would be considered to meet the 5-year use test in subparagraph (a)(vii) of the definition of QFP if Mr. ...

In this regard, you have inquired whether certain outlays and expenses incurred in respect of real property in three specific scenarios are considered part of the cost of the property or the ACB of a capital property for purposes of the ITA. ... In general, outlays and expenses that provide an enduring benefit are considered on account of capital. Conversely, outlays and expenses that only serve to restore a property to its original condition are generally considered current. ...

Based on the wording of the proposed subclauses, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the entire amount deducted under subsection 66.7(2) in computing the taxpayer's income can reasonably be considered to have reduced the amount otherwise determined under clause 66(4)(b)(ii)(A). ... Therefore, in this case, in the absence of a provision within subsection 66.7(2) requiring a particular allocation, the FEDE claimed can be considered to be attributable to either source of income. In addition, in determining income for purposes of subparagraph 66(4)(b)(ii), proposed clause 66(4)(b)(ii)(C) would apply to consider the FEDE determined under subsection 66.7(2) to reduce income from production before being considered to be in respect of the disposal of successored FRP. ...

Position: No Reasons: Not considered to be a payment of, or in lieu of, interest as there was no borrowing by the payor. ... " In addition, interest may be considered to arise where there is a debtor-creditor relationship. ... Although the subvention payment would not be considered interest, there is the possibility that interest would have accrued on any unpaid sum. ...

Position: The amount is not considered to be taxable. Reasons. The facts of this case are considered to be essentially identical with those in Schwartz (96 DTC 6103). ... The SCC considered that the payment was, in part, for loss of the contract and, in part, for personal injury such as embarrassment, anxiety and inconvenience, but there was no evidence to determine what portion related to each of the two parts. Thus, absent a proper determination of that factual situation, the SCC considered that the damages received by Mr. ...

DISCUSSION Text of subsection 13(29) The language of subsection 13(29) is as follows: “(29) Interpretation – Available for use — For the purposes of subsection (26), where a taxpayer acquires property (other than a building that is used or is to be used by the taxpayer principally for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent) in the taxpayer's first taxation year (in this subsection referred to as the "particular year") that begins more than 357 days after the end of the taxpayer's taxation year in which the taxpayer first acquired property after 1989, that is part of a project of the taxpayer, or in a taxation year subsequent to the particular year, and at the end of any taxation year (in this subsection referred to as the "inclusion year") of the taxpayer (a) the property can reasonably be considered to be part of the project, and (b) the property has not otherwise become available for use, if the taxpayer so elects in prescribed form filed with the taxpayer's return of income under this Part for the particular year, that particular portion of the property the capital cost of which does not exceed the amount, if any, by which (c) the total of all amounts each of which is the capital cost to the taxpayer of a depreciable property (other than a building that is used or is to be used by the taxpayer principally for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent) that is part of the project, that was acquired by the taxpayer after 1989 and before the end of the taxpayer's last taxation year that ends more than 357 days before the beginning of the inclusion year and that has not become available for use at or before the end of the inclusion year (except where the property has first become available for use before the end of the inclusion year because of this subsection or paragraph (27)(b) or (28)(c)) exceeds (d) the total of all amounts each of which is the capital cost to the taxpayer of a depreciable property, other than the particular portion of the property, that is part of the project to the extent that the property is considered, because of this subsection, to have become available for use before the end of the inclusion year shall be considered to have become available for use immediately before the end of the inclusion year.” ... The “inclusion year” is any taxation year where, at the end of that taxation year: the property that the taxpayer acquired in either in the particular year or in any taxation year subsequent to the particular year can reasonably be considered to be part of the project (the “acquired property”); and the acquired property has not otherwise become available for use. ... Impact of Filing the Long-Term Project Election The effect of the filing of the Long-Term Project Election is that “that particular portion of property … [up to a threshold amount] shall be considered to have become available for use immediately before the end of the inclusion year”. ...

Accordingly, the dependant coverage would be considered to be a part of the policy for the purposes of the definition of "group term life insurance policy" in subsection 248(1).  ... On the other hand, where dependant coverage is optional and the premiums in respect of the employee and dependant coverage are accounted for separately (as though under separate policies), we are prepared to view the coverage in respect of the dependants as not being coverage under a policy which would otherwise be considered a "group term life insurance policy".  ... It is also our general view that if separate divisions were included in an insurance contract for employee and dependant coverage, the term life insurance coverage for the employees may be considered to be a separate policy for the purposes of the definition of group term life insurance policy" in subsection 248(1).  ...

Therefore, the payments would be considered a non-taxable windfall. With respect to Macau's "Wealth Partaking Scheme", it is our understanding that the Macau Special Administrative Region ("MSAR") has initiated several "Wealth Partaking Schemes". ... The factors that are generally considered in the determination that a particular receipt is a windfall include the following: (a) the taxpayer had not enforceable claim to the payment, (b) the taxpayer made no organized effort to receive the payment, (c) the taxpayer neither sought after nor solicited the payment, (d) the taxpayer had no customary or specific expectation to receive the payment, (e) the taxpayer had no reason to expect the payment would recur, (f) the payment was from a source that is not a customary source of income for the taxpayer (g) the payment was not in consideration for or in recognition of property, services or anything else provided or to be provided by the taxpayer, and (h) the payment was not earned by the taxpayer as a result of activity or pursuit of gain carried on by the taxpayer and was not earned in any other manner. ... In that regard, it is our view that the payments would be considered a windfall. ...