Search - considered

Amounts received (whether in a lump sum or on a stumpage basis) for permitting other persons to remove standing trees from the woodlot are considered to be on account of capital. ... However, an amount received from an infrequent transaction allowing other persons to remove timber from a woodlot is considered a capital receipt. ... Whether the payments received for the removal of timber from the XXX are incidental to the XXX operation, and therefore would be considered to be capital, is a question of fact. ...

In our view this "reasonably be considered to relate" test must be applied on a case by case basis in that the details and facts will differ from case to case. The fact that other assets have been pledged and that the lender in accordance with industry practice requires collateral in excess of the loan balance would be the type of factors to be considered in applying the test. ... Accordingly, we agree that the remarks in PS 83-16 may be considered a better guide, as to the amount of the insurance premium which may "reasonably be considered to relate" to the loan, than the remarks in IT 309R paragraph 7. ...

For example, a housing loan amortized over 25 years, renewable every five years, at a prescribed rate of interest would be considered acceptable while a non-interest bearing housing loan with a 15 year repayment term would be considered much less so. We are, therefore, unable to provide you with a definitive reply as to whether the type of arrangement described would be considered bona fide without taking into account the circumstances of a particular employee. It follows, also, that any change to the repayment arrangement that would bring it closer to one that is available in normal commercial practice would increase the likelihood that it would be considered bona fide. ...

Therefore an amount is considered to be deductible in the year it is capable of being deducted. If an amount is added to the cost of inventory, and the addition is not elective in nature, the outlay or expense is not considered to be "deductible". If the taxpayer has no option as to whether or not to deduct an expense, that is, he must capitalize the outlay, the amount will not be considered to be "deductible" and section 78 would not apply. ...

.- USCo is a U.S. incorporated company and it is considered to be a U.S. resident for U.S. domestic income tax purposes.- Since USCo's directors are Canadian residents and they exercise immediate, direct and detailed control over the activities of the company, its mind and management are considered to be in Canada. Therefore, for purposes of the Act, USCo is considered to be a Canadian resident.- USCo has a fiscal year end of December 31 and was subject to the Canada-U.S. ... Therefore, as of January 1, 1986 USCo will not be considered a resident of Canada for the purposes of either the Convention or the Act. ...

Position: Tax credits are not considered to be taxes paid but are considered when utilized to first apply to taxes on the source of income to which they are attributable. ... Alternative 3 Tax credits are not considered to be taxes paid but are considered when utilized to first apply to taxes on the source of income to which they are attributable. ... Under Alternative 3 tax credits are not considered as taxes paid therefore no foreign tax is considered to be paid on the interest or the capital gain. ...

In our view theXXXXXXXXXX could be considered a structure or building and could be included in class 39. ... Subsection 13(27) establishes for purposes of subsection 13(26) the earliest time that the property (other than a building or part thereof) is considered to have become available for use. Subsection 13(28) establishes the earliest time that a building or part thereof is considered to be available for use by the taxpayer for purposes of subsection 13(26). ...

Whether a $XXXXXXXXXX gas allowance is considered a taxable benefit? 3. Whether employee rebate programs would be considered taxable benefits? ... As such these amounts would be considered taxable benefits under paragraph 6(1)(a). ...

Our Comments It is our view that where cash that is temporarily surplus to the needs of a business is invested in short-term income-producing investments those investments may be considered to be used in the business. Where on the other hand substantial amounts of cash and deposits which are' obviously in excess of that required for use in the business are retained in the corporation on a permanent basis, they would not be considered to be funds used in the business. Rather such funds would be considered as permanently set aside for investment or non-qualified uses (i.e. uses other than in an active business). ...

The position taken in the letter from our Source Deduction Division dated December 15, 1987 was based on the premise that the payment of medical travel and expenses under the Directive could be considered as a payment out of a private health services plan. ... However, it should be noted that the travel costs for dependants of a patient in the situation described in paragraph 20.(2)(b) of the Directive are not considered medical expenses for the purposes of the Act. ... Since the travel costs in such a situation may be considered to be for medical purposes in a more general sense however, we are prepared to accept that the amount may be deductible by the employee under section 110.7 of the Act as part of the northern residence deduction for medical travel. ...