Search - considered

(a) of the “resident portion” definition, the amount of the loan owing by the beneficiary would be considered as a contribution by the beneficiary (viewed in this regard as a resident contributor) and would be included in the resident portion of the trust. The repayment of the loan would be considered to be a contribution to the trust by the resident beneficiary so that the cash repayment proceeds would be added to the resident portion. ...

CRA denied the s. 104(6)(b) deduction for the two payments, and considered that they should be included in the minors’ income pursuant to s. 105(1) rather than s. 104(13). Hogan J found that if an amount cannot be paid under the terms of a trust it cannot be considered to be payable, so that the denial of the deductions was confirmed. ...

X would be considered to have made the contribution to Trust at a time other than a non-resident time since Mr. ... Z would be considered to be a connected contributor… because at the time the contribution was made, Mr. ... Consequently, the contribution would not be considered to have been made at a non-resident time of Mr. ...

Subsection 74.5(3) does not require a minimum time for individuals to be considered as living separate and apart from one another because of the breakdown of a common-law relationship. Thus, in the particular situation, the two taxpayers could, according to the facts, be considered as living separate and apart from each other for the purposes of subsection 74.5(3), notwithstanding the fact that they are deemed living together in a conjugal relationship for the purposes of the definition of "common-law partner" in subsection 248(1). ...

In such a situation, it appears to us that the payment of the additional tax by Opco would have the effect of reducing the safe income on hand that can reasonably be considered to contribute to the gain on the shares of the capital stock of Opco held by Buyco [per the summary, "the gain inherent in the Opco's shares"]. ... [price adjustment to Opco] In the situation where the agreement of purchase and sale for the shares of the capital stock of Opco provides that Sellco is responsible for the amount of any reassessment for a taxation year prior to the acquisition of the shares and to the extent that Opco received or is considered to have received from Sellco an amount equivalent to the amount of additional tax arising under the reassessment, the calculation of the safe income on hand attributable to the Opco shares held by Buyco would need to take into account the application of paragraph 12(1)(x) or subsection 12(2.2) to the compensation received from Sellco. ...

11 June 2013 STEP Roundtable, 2013-0480321C6- 2013 STEP Question 6 US LLCs- FAPI, FAT and FTCs-- summary under Foreign Accrual Tax Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 95- Subsection 95(1)- Foreign Accrual Tax Is the US tax paid by a Canadian-resident taxpayer on the income (which also is foreign accrual property income) of an LLC which is owned by it (and is a controlled foreign affiliate) considered to be foreign accrual tax in respect of the LLC? ... " However, any amount included under s. 91(1) in respect of the FAPI would be considered income from sources in the US for purposes of ss. 20(11) and 126(1), so that an individual taxpayer could deduct under s. 20(11) any portion of the US tax paid for the year in excess of 15% of the s. 91(1) income inclusion. ...

CRA responded (TI translation): [T]wo units of a duplex will be considered as together constituting a single housing unit to the extent that they are sufficiently integrated so that it is not possible to live normally in the living areas of one of the units without also having access to the other unit in order to use its facilities. This will be the case, for example, if one of the units contains all the bedrooms while the other unit contains the kitchen and the bathroom, and the two units are jointly used for residential purposes as a single unit. … [T]he fact that inner door access is installed between the two units or that meals are prepared and taken the vast majority of the time in one of the two units does not appear to be sufficient for the two units to be considered as a single housing unit for the purposes of the I.T.A. ...

7 October 2016 APFF Roundtable Q. 2, 2016-0652841C6 F- Changement partiel d’usage- immeuble locatif et résidentiel-- summary under Paragraph 45(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 45- Subsection 45(1)- Paragraph 45(1)(c) switch between which triplex units used for personal/ family rental or 3rd-party rental did not trigger change of use For the purposes of the s. 45 change-of-use rules, a child’s occupation of a dwelling is considered as personal use if a below-market rent is paid. 2011-0417471E5 indicated that a duplex which has not been legally divided is a single property for s. 45(1) purposes. ... CRA responded: The CRA is of the view that a building is normally considered to be a single property unless it was legally subdivided into two or more separate properties. … In the described situation, although each of the building's units was subject to a change of use in Year 11, the relation between the use regularly made by the taxpayer of the property for gaining or producing income and the use regularly made of the property for other purposes did not change during the year. ...

Where during the administration of an estate that arose after 2015, taxable income is generated yet all debts and specific bequests have been paid, can the Executor pay or make payable this taxable income to the residual beneficiaries, such that the amount of this taxable income would be considered payable, under s. 104(24), for the purposes of ss. 104(6) and 104(13)? ... In such cases distributions to residual beneficiaries could not be considered to be income payable to a beneficiary for purposes of subsections 104(6) and 104(13). ...

CRA responded: Since neither spouse works more than 4 hours in any business carried on by any of the particular corporations they own, the requirements of the bright line test in paragraph 120.4(1.1)(a) would not be met and, as such, it remains a question of fact as to whether either spouse would otherwise be considered to be actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis in the activities of each such business on the basis of the limited number of hours worked. … … 2019-0799901C6 … and … Example 9 of … Guidance on the Application of the Split Income Rules for Adults provide useful general guidance …. In particular … 2019-0799901C6 … indicated that a husband and wife could both be considered to be actively engaged in the activities of a particular business carried on by their corporation on a regular, continuous and substantial basis for a particular year where the particular business did not require any other workers and only required them to spend on average 5 hours each per week in that business. ...