Search - considered

You have asked whether, in the above situation, Revenue Canada would allow a loss to be recognized in 1988 without the application of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) of the Act or alternatively, allow the loss to be recognized in 1989 even though the debt could be considered to have become bad in 1988. ... You have made reference in your letter to the Tax Court of Canada case of Fritz v MNR 85 DTC 507 as confirming that a debt can be considered bad even though the corporation is still operating.  ... You may wish to explore the possibility that the bad debt could be considered to have become bad in 1989 when the assets were sold to pay down existing debts of the corporation.  ...

You have requested our opinion as to whether Company X's interest in the office building is considered to be rental property as defined in subsection 1100(14) of the Regulations and as such, whether its claim for capital cost allowance will be computed pursuant to subsection 1100(11) of the Regulations. ... However, based on the above information it is our opinion that the office building would not be considered a rental property as defined in subsection 1100(14) of the Regulations for the purpose of determining Company X's taxable income.  The reasons for this opinion are as follows: 1)     Allocation of floor space is generally considered a reasonable basis for determining the principal use of a building. 2)     A total of 54% of the building is occupied by the owners of the building and thus it would not appear to be used principally for the purpose of gaining or producing gross revenue that is rent. 3)     Company X occupies 21% of the building.  ...

Principal Issues: Whether remuneration paid out of the proceeds generated from a major sale of business assets is beyond the scope of the policy on when, for purposes of section 67 of the Income Tax Act, shareholder/manager remuneration will be considered reasonable. ... Provided the other conditions outlined in the policy are met, remuneration paid from income earned from the normal, ongoing business operations will be considered reasonable for purposes of section 67 of the Act. ... We would like to emphasize that our response to Question 4 does not mean that remuneration paid from the proceeds of a major sale of business assets will necessarily be considered unreasonable for purposes of section 67 of the Act. ...

As a guideline, the intangible benefit from those events costing up to $100 per person will be considered to be non-taxable. Parties costing more than that are generally considered to be beyond the `privilege' point and may result in taxable benefits. Ancillary costs, such as transportation home, may increase the amount considered reasonable. ...

Will the sales tax paid by B be considered an additional capital contribution to the partnership and be added to the ACB of B's partnership interest? ... For purposes of the SSTA, where the purchaser is a partnership, the individual partners rather than the partnership are liable for the tax to the extent that each partner is considered to have acquired an interest in the property.  ... The payment of the tax by the partnership would be a payment of a personal liability of partner B and would be considered a distribution of property by the partnership to partner B. ...

Reasons: Any proposed changes to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations would have to be considered by Finance Canada and approved by Parliament. ... Any proposed changes to tax policy or legislation would have to be considered by Finance Canada and approved by Parliament. ...

Reasons: To be considered ongoing, the Regulations specify a minimum duration of five or more consecutive days. ... To be considered ongoing, the Regulations specify that a program must be a minimum duration of five or more consecutive days of which more than 50 percent of the daily activities include a significant amount of physical activity. ...

There are, however, a number of other factors that have to be considered in determining if the exemption would apply to a particular individual. ...

From the limited information you have provided, it appears that you are considered a factual resident of Canada for income tax purposes. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada for a period of time, you are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. ...

However, the actual receipt of the payment in 1996 would not be considered as income. ... For the landowner, the portion of the payment given to the lessee is not considered a transition and it does not affect the landowner,s income. ...