Search - considered

Other application of sale In the common law provinces, legal and equitable interest[s] in real property [are] specifically considered "real property" within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the definition of real property in subsection 123(1) of the Act. … The grant or transfer of the legal ownership of an equitable interest in real property may, therefore, be considered a "sale" of real property. … Where such grants or transfers are considered a "sale", the self-assessment rules of subsection 221(2) of the Act would apply. ... The consideration paid for the actual grant of the interest may be considered as being in respect of the sale of the interest where there is no consideration related to the actual use of the underlying property. ...

However, in such situations, the specific facts must be considered to determine whether the particular property or properties purchased will be considered as a replacement property for the original property or properties. ... Where it cannot readily be determined whether one property is actually being replaced by another, the newly acquired property will not be considered a replacement property for the former property. ... A building at a new location probably would not be considered a replacement property for a building at an old location if the business operations at the two locations are carried on simultaneously (other than for a brief transitional period, for example, while the inventory at the old location is liquidated). ...

5 July 1993 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 33, p. 8, ¶2643)-- summary under Retiring Allowance Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Retiring Allowance Under paragraph 30(c) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations, an employee is considered to have been laid off where she was advised that the period of the lay-off would not exceed six months and she was recalled to work within that period. She would not be considered to have her employment terminated unless her laid-off status exceeded the six-month period. A payment which is described both within the definition of a retiring allowance and under s. 6(3) will be considered to be the former. ...

In this context, is a home office an RPE if work is performed there on a periodic basis (i.e. once or twice a month), and what are the common factors considered in determining if a work location is an RPE or a special work site? CRA responded: Where an employee works at multiple locations, the regularity of the reporting and the nature of the duties carried on at this location is considered as well as the frequency. For example, if an area manager reports for work at three different stores throughout the year to carry out supervisory duties as required, each of these locations could be considered a regular place of employment. … a location may not be a RPE for an individual if, for example, the individual works at that particular location only once during the year or perhaps for only a few days in the year. … The CRA’s general position is that travel between an employee’s home and their employer’s business location is personal, even when the employee has a home office that is a regular place of employment. … CRA does not have a list of common factors used to determine if a work location is an RPE. … [F]or a location to be considered a special work site…: 1. ...

CRA Webpage, “Determine the province of employment (POE)” 6 October 2023-- summary under Subsection 102(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 102- Subsection 102(1) tests for determining the location of the employer establishment to which the employee reports in the context of remote work Regarding the determination of the location of the establishment of the employer for purposes of applying source deductions pursuant to Reg. 102(1), effective January 1, 2024 CRA’s policy will be that an employee will be considered to report for work at an establishment of the employer if: Where a “full-time remote work agreement” is in place, the employee can be reasonably considered “attached to an establishment of the employer”; or The employee physically reports for work at the establishment, which can include a temporary establishment such as a construction site, or a carnival in a shopping-mall parking lot, but which does not generally include an employee’s home office and with there now being no minimum amount of time for this test to be engaged [see previously, 2015-0620821I7]. Regarding whether there is a “full-time remote work agreement”: Generally, the CRA considers a full-time remote work agreement to exist between the employer and the employee when the following arrangements are made: the agreement is either temporary or permanent, the employer directs or allows employees to perform their employment duties full-time (100%) remotely and the employment duties are to be performed at one or more locations that are not establishments of the employer Regarding whether the employee can be reasonably considered “attached to an establishment of the employer”: The primary indicator to determine if an employee can reasonably be considered "attached to an establishment of the employer" is whether the employee would physically come to work to carry out the functions related to their employment duties at that establishment, if it was not for the full-time remote work agreement. For employees who physically reported to an establishment of the employer immediately before entering a full-time remote work agreement, that establishment is the one to which they would be reasonably considered to be attached, unless the employee's circumstances or the nature of their duties have changed. ...

Such a sale would not normally be considered as having been made as an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. If the activities involved in the sale are minimal, the sale will generally be considered as having been made on account of capital. ... If the activities undertaken are required solely for purposes of facilitating the sale, such as providing the minimum amount of services required by existing law, the activities would be considered minimal. ...

A business activity will not be considered related simply because it generates profits that the organization can use to fund its programs. ... The sale of news content, advertising and subscriptions are examples of business activities that would be considered to be related to journalism. ... An RJO that acquires and holds a partnership interest beyond these limits would be considered to be carrying on the business of the partnership. ...

GST26 Election or Revocation of an Election by a Public Service Body to Have an Exempt Supply of Real Property Treated as a Taxable Supply-- summary under Paragraph 211(5)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 211- Subsection 211(5)- Paragraph 211(5)(a) Effect of deemed supply under s. 211(1) If the election becomes effective after the day you acquire the real property … If you bought the real property and the election becomes effective after the day you bought it, you are considered to have made a taxable sale of the property just before the effective date of the election and to have repurchased the property on the effective date of the election. ... In this case, the following rules apply: • Because you are considered to have made a taxable sale of the real property, you can claim an ITC equal to the basic tax content of the property just before the election took effect. This means that you can now claim an ITC for all or part of the GST/HST that you paid, or that was payable, on your last acquisition of the property (for example, when you originally bought, or last self-assessed on, the property), and on any improvements you made to it, that you could not previously recover. • You have to report the tax you are considered to have collected on your deemed sale on your GST/HST return for the reporting period in which the deemed sale occurred. • You can claim an ITC for the GST/HST you are considered to have paid on your deemed purchase to the extent that you use the real property in your commercial activities. ...

RC, since it considered that only the rights and obligations established by the documents could be considered, considered that it was impossible to declare that there was de facto control of Opco by the public corporation. ...

Whether or not a loan made by a corporation to an individual is considered to have been received by that individual in his or her capacity as an employee or as a shareholder involves a finding of fact in each particular case. When a public corporation makes a loan to a shareholder on the same terms and conditions as to other employees who are not shareholders, the loan is normally considered to be a loan received by virtue of that individual's office or employment rather than his or her shareholdings. However, when the opportunity to borrow funds is only made available to shareholders or when the terms and conditions attached to loans to employee-shareholders are more favourable than those attached to loans to other employees, the loan will be considered to have been made to the employee-shareholder in his or her capacity as a shareholder unless the facts clearly indicate otherwise. ...