Search - considered

However, if Taxpayer A chooses to elect out of subsection 73(1) and Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B are not dealing at arm’s length at the time of the transfer subsection 69(1) will apply such that Taxpayer A will be considered to have disposed of the shares for proceeds equal to fair market value (FMV) at the time of transfer. Taxpayer B will be considered to have acquired the shares for an amount equal to Taxpayer A’s proceeds of disposition (i.e. ... Individuals connected by marriage are considered to not deal at arm’s length. ...

An officer or employee is not considered to have been required to pay their own motor vehicle expenses if their employer reimburses them or they refuse a reimbursement or reasonable allowance from their employer. 3. ... Whether an XXXXXXXXXX satisfies the above conditions is a question of fact and each situation must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the allowance received by an XXXXXXXXXX for motor vehicle expenses is excluded from the XXXXXXXXXX’s income by subsection 81(2) of the Act, the XXXXXXXXXX cannot claim motor vehicle expenses because he or she will not be considered to have been required to pay his or her own motor vehicle expenses (i.e., condition 2 not met). ...

22 May 2007 Internal T.I. 2007-0229241I7- sharecropper Unedited CRA Tags 248(1) Principal Issues: Whether income under "sharecropping arrangement" received by a farmer from a tenant in lieu of rent is considered rental income or farming income. ... It was determined by CAIS program staff at Agricorp that XXXXXXXXXX was not eligible for the CAIS program in 2005 on the basis that his income from crop-sharing was considered to be rental income and not farming income for income tax purposes. ... Paragraph 9 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-433R "Farming or Fishing- Use of Cash Method" indicates that the crop share received by a landlord in a sharecropping arrangement is considered to be rental income and not income from farming where the "sharecropping arrangement" is an arrangement under which a taxpayer or landlord receives from a tenant a share of crop in lieu of rent. ...

5 October 2017 Internal T.I. 2015-0614021I7- 214(16) deemed dividend Unedited CRA Tags 214(16), 212(2), 248(1), 89(1) Principal Issues: Is a deemed dividend under ss. 214(16) considered to be a “taxable dividend” for all purposes of the Act? ... In the submission to us, the representative noted that the definition “taxable dividend” applies for the purposes of the Act and on this basis he asked whether the deemed dividend under subsection 214(16) would be considered to be a “taxable dividend” for all purposes of the Act. ... Even though the definition “taxable dividend” applies for the purposes of the Act, the interest paid or credited under subsection 214(16) is deemed to have been paid as a dividend solely for the purposes of Part XIII and, accordingly, it is considered to be a “taxable dividend” solely for the purposes of Part XIII. ...

(2) Will a retroactive WCB benefit payment be considered as qualifying retroactive lump sum for purposes of section 110.2 of the Income Tax Act. ... In addition, you have asked for our comments on whether these retroactive WCB payments will be considered a "qualifying amount" for purposes of section 110.2 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... As such, retroactive WCB payments are not considered qualifying amounts for purposes of the definition in section 110.2 of the Act. ...

Reasons: If the benefit is received as part of a reasonable remuneration package paid to the individual as an employee, it may be considered to be received qua employee; otherwise, it would be considered to be received qua shareholder. ... It is our general position that a benefit will be considered to be received qua employee if it is reasonable to conclude that it has been provided as part of a reasonable remuneration package for the individual as an employee. ...

The purpose of paragraph 252(4)(a) of the Act is to determine whether a particular individual can be considered a spouse in relation to the taxpayer for the general purposes of the Act. ... The amount of the benefit payable for a particular month is based on the income of the claimant and that of any other individual who can be considered a "cohabiting spouse" as that term is defined in section 122.6 of the Act. ... In our opinion based on the example in your memorandum, Woman A would be considered the spouse of Mr. ...

Amour 957-2139 973194 Definition of Canadian Vessel This is in response to your memorandum of December 1, 1997, requesting our views on how much Canadian content is required in order for a ship to be considered a Canadian Vessel. ... It is a question of fact, whether any particular vessel would be considered to be constructed in Canada. ... Therefore, in our view, a vessel would be considered to be constructed in Canada if the location of the shipbuilding factory at which it was built is situated within the boundaries of Canada. ...

Testamentary Trusts This is in response to your memorandum dated July 20, 1998, concerning the question of whether the above named trusts could be considered testamentary trusts as defined in subsection 108(1) of the Act. XXXXXXXXXX The taxpayer’s representative relies on an excerpt from a technical interpretation quoted in a 1993 edition of The Canadian Taxpayer which basically states that a trust funded from the proceeds of a life insurance policy available on the death of an individual will be considered to be a testamentary trust even where the terms of that trust have been established during the taxpayer’s lifetime. ... Our Comments The document quoted by the taxpayer in support of their claim that the trusts in question should be considered testamentary is not applicable to this particular situation. ...

Position TAKEN: taxable Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN: It can reasonably be considered that one of the main purposes for the use of an employer on the reserve is to establish a connecting factor between the income in question and a reserve and only 6% of the population lives on a reserve. ... However, where it can reasonably be considered that one of the main purposes for the existence of the employment relationship is to establish a connecting factor between the income in question and a reserve, the income will not be tax-exempt. ... However, since the avowed objective of the XXXXXXXXXX Indian Education Authority is to qualify Indian employees of the XXXXXXXXXX School Division for the tax exemption, it is unlikely that we would exempt them on their employment income since it could reasonably be considered that one of the main purposes, if not the only one, behind the use of the unidentified on-reserve employer is to establish a connecting factor between the income in question and a reserve. ...