Search - considered

These assets were considered by Specialized Industries Section and by Rulings to be "qualified property" as this term is defined in subsection 127(9) of the Act provided that said assets are used primarily for the purpose of logging. ... XXX The June 9, 1989 memorandum from Specialized Industries Section however requests clarification of our position on whether equipment used for handling logs in the water would be considered as being used in logging activities. It is our view that assets such as the aforementioned self-tripping bunks, related skidways and equipment used for handling logs in the water (for floating the logs to a processing facility) would be considered as being used primarily for the purpose of logging. ...

It should be noted that for purposes of the Act, life insurance corporations are considered to be public corporations. ... A corporation's business will be considered to have been carried on in Canada if at least 50% of its employees are engaged in the business in Canada or at least 50% of its salaries or wages are paid for services provided in Canada in respect of the business. If the corporation is part of a group of related corporations, the combined services of their employees and the combined salaries and wages paid must be considered in making this determination. ...

We would first of all like to point out that the rate of Part XIII tax on a computer software licence fee payment made by a Canadian resident to a person considered to be a resident of the U.S. for purposes of the Canada-U.S. ... It is our position that the following two conditions must be met in order for payments for any services, including a hot line service, provided in connection with the use of computer software not to be considered part of the software licence fee which is subject to Part XIII tax: 1. ... If the payments for services are not considered to be part of the computer software license fee, they could still be subject to a 15% withholding under subsection 105(1) of the Income Tax Regulations if the services are rendered in Canada by the non-resident person. ...

For purposes of the Income Tax Act the permit holder would not be considered to own the road. ... The costs incurred to build the road can not be considered part of the cost of a TRP as such costs do not meet the definition in para- graph 13(21)(d.l). ... In conclusion, it is our view that for purposes of paragraph 15.1(3)(f) of the Act, costs incurred to obtain a TRP would be considered a Class 33 depreciable property while the costs incurred to obtain access to the timber would be considered Class 10 or Class 15 depreciable property. ...

On the basis of the facts outlined in that letter and applying the rules of Article 3 to your case, it is our view that as at the present time, you should be considered a resident of Canada only. ... Article 3(2)(a) states that a person who is considered to be a resident of two countries for income tax purposes shall be deemed to be a resident of the country in which he has a permanent home available to him. ... On the other hand, in view of your husband's house in England also being available to you, it is possible that you might be considered to have a permanent home in that country as well. ...

First, if the payment is considered to be a dividend under the relevant corporate law it would probably be considered to be a dividend for Canadian income tax purposes. ... With respect to the first issue, a payment in respect of a "jouissance right" is not considered to be a dividend for purposes of German corporate law. ... Payments in respect of jouissance rights will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine in each situation how the payment shall be characterized. ...

These dividend and rental payments are subject to Canadian Part XIII tax. 19(1) are concerned that we will interpret paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article $ ("Articles 4(1) and 4(2)") (a photocopy of which is attached) of the Australian Convention in such a manner that the Society will not be considered to be a resident of Australia for purposes of this Convention and will thus not be entitled to the benefits contained therein (e.g. reduced withholding rates on amounts subject to Canadian Part XIII tax). ... Accordingly, the Society may be considered to be a resident of Australia for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Australian Convention Because it would be considered to be a resident of Australia for purposes of its tax. 2) As the Canadian source income of the Society would be exempt from Australian tax because the Society is a non-profit organization and not solely because such income is subject to Canadian tax, Article 4(2) of the Australian Convention applies to cause the Society to not be considered a resident of Australia for all purposes of this Convention. ... Convention, was it intended that exempt organizations be considered resident in a contracting state for purposes of any treaty in order that they receive the benefits of the treaty? ...

It appears from the wording of section 251 that once divorced, the individuals are no longer considered to be related and neither section 69 nor subsection 116(5.1) are applicable. ... The ex-spouse who receives the property will be considered to have an adjusted cost base equal to the taxpayer's proceeds of disposition. ... As a result, any property that changes hands during this period would be considered to occur while the parties were not dealing at arm's length. ...

As you felt that this was not the intention of the legislation you asked the following questions: a) for the purposes of subsection 110.6(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") could the dividend receivable by the parent be considered a bond, debenture, bill, note, mortgage, hypothec or similar obligation. b) for the purposes of subsection 110.6(1) of the Act could the dividend receivable be considered part of the underlying share and not a separate asset. c) For the purposes of subsection 110.6(1) of the Act should assets owned by a subsidiary and owed to a parent not be counted both as assets of the subsidiary and of the parent. ... Thus our opinion is that the dividend payable could not be considered a "similar obligation" as referred to in subsection 110.6(1) of the Act. b) In our opinion, a dividend receivable could not be considered part of the underlying shares. ... Thus the shares and related dividends must be treated as separate assets. c) As there is no provision in the legislation relating to possible "double" counting of assets it is our opinion that the wording of the legislation must be followed and the total assets of each corporation considered when evaluating each corporation's qualifications. ...

Where an amount paid in the course of a landlord's property rental business to obtain the lead or anchor tenant(s) for a project yields a benefit of an enduring nature to the landlord, it is considered to be an eligible capital expenditure. A lead or anchor tenant is so characterized on the basis of such factors as square metres (feet) leased, the duration of the lease and its financial or marketing importance to the project. c) current expenditure: An amount paid in the course of a landlord's property rental business to obtain a non-anchor tenant is considered to be on income account. An amount paid to a lead or anchor tenant is also considered to be on income account where the payment does not yield an enduring benefit. ...