Search - considered

Our comments We have considered this matter in depth and it is our opinion that for the purposes of the Act other than subdivision b of Division B thereof, the expression "income from property" should be given its ordinary meaning.  ... Such income was considered as income from property in its ordinary sense, with the annuity contract being regarded as the property the source of the income.  ...

In our opinion. where the land is held for resale. the services which are added to the land in anticipation of resale will not be excluded from the definition of land by subparagraph 18(3)(a)(i) of the Act. paragraph 5 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-153R2 states that "the Department's view is that a taxpayer has acquired a building or other structure' within subparagraph 18(3)(a)(i) at the time when site development begins" and paragraph 6 of IT-153R2 states "where serviced lots are acquired site development is considered to begin at the earlier of the date the taxpayer starts to install further services to the lots or the date he starts to pour footings". ... In addition, revenue from the lease, rental, farming, or carrying on a business on one lot will not be considered to be revenue related to the ownership of the other lots. ...

Insofar as the various costs (excluding interest) set forth in Appendix A of your letter are concerned, they will generally be considered as deductible costs in accordance with the above criteria pursuant to paragraphs 18(1)(a), 20(1)(e), and 20(1)(aa) of the Act, subject, of course, to the particular facts of a particular project and that they are reasonable in the circumstances. ... They are, of course, expressions of opinion only and cannot be considered as binding on the Department. ...

This determination is said to be a question of fact and, in making it, one of the principal factors which may be properly considered is the purpose or intention for which the assistance was provided. All other available information is also to be considered. 3. In view of the above, the information that you have submitted and, particularly, the comments in 1. above, we consider that this government assistance in fact reduces the feeding costs of the live- stock. ...

However, Part XVII assets are considered individually for the purpose of making a claim thereunder and, accordingly, each asset would need to qualify separately before it could be included in a prescribed class for the purpose of making a claim under Part XI. ... Secondly, it should be kept in mind that, once an allowable claim for capital cost allowance has been made under Part XI in respect of a property that was formerly depreciated under Part XVII, the property will be considered for recapture and terminal loss purposes to have always been included under Part XI. ...

As a result of the aforementioned representations, the Department adopted in 1952 the following practice: "Where, in accordance with the points discussed above in items (a), (b) and (c), it is considered that a reduction in the valuation of an inventory may properly be allowed, the valuation arrived at under the Retail Inventory Method may be reduced by one or both of the following deductions: (a) not more than 5% to compensate for obsolete, slow moving, or shop-worn merchandise; (b) not more than 2 1/2% to compensate for the margin of error in the average rate of mark-up. ... " With respect to inventory valuation in general, the Department's position is that where a method of valuing an inventory is considered acceptable because of its practicality, the Department expects that generally accepted accounting principles will be applied in arriving at the value of the inventory and that such value will be reflected both for tax purposes and for financial statement purposes. ...

The reference in clause 13(21)(d.1)(i)(A) to subparagraph (ii) shows that the draughtsman was aware that the definition of "original right" was very broad and included rights that would not normally be considered original rights and, more importantly, was limited to the opening words of the preamble to subparagraph 13(21)(d.1)(i) and did not contain the qualifying conditions contained in clauses 13(21)(d.1)(i)(A) and (B) and, in particular, the reference to "acquired...after May 6, 1974". ... It is conceivable that the draughtsman considered that there was little difference between an original right and an extension as long as either was part of a series of two or more rights and that he purposely draughted the paragraph so that any right acquired after May 6, 1974, that was part of such a series would be subject to the new system in respect of timber resource properties. ...

In support of the primary submission that the catalyst is a component part of the convertor the following cases (which are not quoted exactly) are cited: (a) water tanks filled with sand and placed in line and one above the other to constitute a wall were held to be a structure even if they adhered to the soil only by their own weight (Hobday v Nicol (1944) 1 ALL E.R. 302) (b) articles affixed to freehold even in a slight way, but appropriate to their use, and showing an intention not of occasional but of permanent affixing it may be concluded that the articles are becoming part of the realty e.g. a built-in safe which could not be removed without destroying part of the realty could be considered an adjunct to a building. ... Since the catalyst is meant to be replaced and is replaced over the life of the convertor it follows that the catalyst cannot be considered to be attached to a building for the purpose of Class 8(b). ...

The shares of Canco are held separately from the corporation's Canadian branch operations and the shares would not be considered connected to those business operations. ... It would seem in this case because the effective direction of USCO 1 is outside Canada its business would not be considered "managed and controlled in Canada" and so the interest which it pays to USCO 2 would seem covered by this exemption. ...

Secondly, we are unable to agree with your comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of your letter, wherein you submit that "the "questions of fact" as to "whereby it may reasonably be considered certain having regard to all the circumstances" that a Revenue Guarantee is in existence is really a question of opinion". ... Again, it is undesirable to be too far removed from the "at risk" concept which is a necessary feature of all tax shelters. (5) Further, the other wording of paragraph 1100(21)(b) of the Regulations, "whereby it may reasonably be considered certain, having regard to all the circumstances, that the investor will receive revenue... ...