Search - considered

The central management and control of an organization is usually considered to be exercised by the group that performs the function of a board of directors of the organization. ... Where an organization asserts that it satisfies the definition because it holds its board of directors meetings on reserve, it would generally be considered to satisfy the definition where management and control over the organization is legitimately exercised during those meetings. ... Nevertheless, in our view, in a situation where the board of directors meets on a reserve, at which decisions are made which direct an organization's operations, such an organization would generally be considered to be resident on a reserve. ...

Principal Issues: Whether the short-term rental of a passenger vehicle, leased by an arm's length person, is considered to be an indirect payment of "all or part of the actual lease charges in respect of a passenger vehicle" for the purposes of section 67.3 of the Act. ... Unless it can be clearly shown that a particular payment is in respect of the Rental of a passenger vehicle and hence be considered an indirect payment of the actual lease charges of the lessor who has actually leased the passenger vehicle, it is our general view that a Rental payment in respect of an hourly rental or a daily rental of a passenger vehicle would not normally be considered to be a payment of part of the actual lease charges of the taxpayer who has leased a passenger vehicle. ...

John Kanis Bob Naufal, CMA Client Services Division (613) 957-2744 2003-005382 Individuals subcontracting to their own corporations We are writing in response to your email of December 18, 2003 wherein you asked for our views on whether an individual shareholder of a corporation, who enters into an agreement with, and provides services to the corporation, would be considered to be providing such services as a self-employed contractor or as an employee. ... Factors to be considered in applying this test include the required investments to be made by the individual, permanency of the relationship, and the skill required by the individual. ... However, if, in the absence of the corporation, there would be no common law master-servant relationship and the individual who undertakes to perform the services would be viewed as a self-employed individual carrying on a business, the individual would not be considered to be an incorporated employee. ...

Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN: The transfer of a qualified security under the terms of the Standard Agreement would be considered an acquisition by the Buyer (borrower) for purposes of the Act regardless of the results, for tax purposes, to the Seller (lender) as a consequence of the application of subsection 260 of the Act June 5, 2001 TORONTO NORTH TSO HEADQUARTERS Industry Specialist Services P. ... It continues to be our view (see file # 9427715) that the transfer of a qualified security under the terms of the Standard Agreement would be considered an acquisition by the Buyer (borrower) for purposes of the Act regardless of the results, for tax purposes, to the Seller (lender) as a consequence of the application of subsection 260 of the Act. ... If the agreement is structured in a manner that the incidents of beneficial ownership of the securities remains with the lender the transaction may not be a sale and the cash consideration paid to the lender could in such case be considered a loan made by the borrower to the lender. ...

Similarly, it is our opinion that related support services costs, other than installation costs of the software and annual upgrade fees, (see paragraph (3) below), would be considered SR&ED expenditures of a current nature. (2) An expenditure for the acquisition of a license to use computer software would not, for the purposes of the Act, be considered "an expenditure of a current nature for.....the lease of.... equipment". ... Accordingly, such installation and upgrade expenditures would not be considered current expenditures. (4) Although both current and capital SR&ED expenditures may be deductible under subsection 37(1) and qualify for the investment tax credit under subsection 127(9) of the Act, proper classification of an expenditure is necessary because of other provisions of the Act, such as subsection 37(6) which provides for a recapture in respect of property that otherwise would be depreciable property, as discussed under paragraph 29 of IT-151R5. ...

Therefore, we agree that ordinarily SR&ED performed outside the territorial sea of Canada would not be considered performed in a province and it would be ineligible for the NF SR&ED tax credit. ... Paragraph 42(a) of the NF ITA describes an eligible "expenditure" to be: "an expenditure made after 1995, by a taxpayer with a permanent establishment in the province in respect of scientific research to be carried out in the province that is a qualified expenditure under subsection 127(9) of the federal Act, without reference to paragraph (h) of that subsection;" Since the CNAAIA deems the province of NF to include the offshore area for the purpose of the NF ITA, it is our opinion that when a corporation, to whom the CNAAIA applies, performs SR&ED in the NF offshore area, that location would be considered in the province for the purposes of the NF ITA. ... The CNAAIA is applicable to the corporate oil and gas industry; therefore, our comments extending the definition of NF to include the NF offshore area are only to be considered applicable to that industry. ...

However, if Expenditures under the DSC plan are matchable expenditures by reason of paragraph 18.1(1)(b) or (c) of the "matchable expenditure" definition then, pursuant to subparagraph 18.1(15)(a)(i) of the Act, section 18.1 of the Act will not apply if the Expenditure cannot reasonably be considered to relate to a tax shelter (as defined in subsection 18.1(1) of the Act) or tax shelter investment (as defined in subsection 143.2(1) of the Act) and none of the main purposes for making the Expenditures is for XXXXXXXXXX to obtain a "tax benefit". ... Conclusion It is our view that Expenditures under the DSC plan are not matchable expenditures by reason of paragraph 18.1(1)(a) of the "matchable expenditure" definition of the Act since in our opinion Expenditures under the DSC plan cannot reasonably be considered incurred to acquire a "right to receive production". Although Expenditures under the DSC plan may be matchable expenditures by reason of paragraph 18.1(1)(b) of the "matchable expenditure" definition of the Act, it would appear that Expenditures under the DSC plan cannot reasonably be considered to relate to a tax shelter and it would appear that none of the main purposes for XXXXXXXXXX making the Expenditures is to obtain a "tax benefit"; therefore, pursuant to subparagraph 18.1(15)(a)(i) of the Act, section 18.1 of the Act would not apply. ...

Principal Issues: What are the types of licenses which will be considered unrestricted for the purposes of the definition of "registered securities dealer" in subsection 248(1) Position: See memo. ... While it will be a question of fact to be determined in each case on the basis of the actual terms contained in or attached to the licenses in question, we have reviewed the various licenses available pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act, and believe that a taxpayer licensed as a registered broker, investment dealer, international dealer or securities dealer would generally be considered to be a registered securities dealer for the purposes of the ITA. Financial intermediary dealers, foreign dealers, limited market dealers, mutual fund dealers, scholarship plan dealers, and security issuers in Ontario are not likely to be considered to be registered securities dealers for the purposes of the ITA because all have restrictions as to the securities they may deal with. ...

Now, a taxpayer's activity will be considered a source of income under the Act, if it is carried on in "pursuit of a profit". An activity that does not contain a personal or hobby element will generally be considered undertaken in pursuit of profit and therefore, constitute a source of income under the Act. ... Therefore, in 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. ...

Interpretation Bulletin, IT-138R IT-138R, which contained the CCRA's interpretative position with respect to the computation and allocation of income of a partnership, was cancelled on December 31, 2000 because much of the information contained in that Bulletin was considered out of date. The information contained in the Bulletin was also considered redundant since information on the computation of partnership income could be found in Guide T4068, Guide for the Partnership Information Return. ... It further stated that the excess of the salaries over such income was considered as a deduction in the partner's capital account, and, in addition, allowed as a deduction in determining the allocation of income / loss of the partnership to the partner. ...