Search - considered

You have requested our opinion as to whether Company X's interest in the office building is considered to be a 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. ...

Whether the Trust Fund would be considered as an employee benefit plan (“EBP”) or retirement compensation arrangement (“RCA”) as these terms are defined under subsection 248(1) of the Act. ... Alternatively, it is arguable that the surplus received by the Trust Fund from the RPP may be considered as a superannuation or pension benefit and would be included in the income of the Trust Fund under paragraph 56(1)(a) of the Act. ... Consequently, provided that the employer and the RPP deal at arm's length, and provided that the payment by the RPP cannot reasonably be considered to be made on behalf of the employer it is our view that the Trust Fund would not be an EBP or an RCA but would be an intervivos trust which is taxable under Part I of the Act. ...

The issue in respect of which our opinion is requested is whether or not the interest income of Company C would be considered to be "foreign accrual property income" in its fiscal periods coinciding with the fiscal periods of Company A in which Company A has net losses for tax purposes under the rules of Country A. ... Regulation 5907(1)(a)(ii) would include the interest paid by Company A to Company B, net of related expenses, in the earnings from an active business of Company B, which then would result in the interest paid by Company B to Company C being considered deductible in determining the earnings from an active business of Company B. ... Such interest income would therefore not be considered "foreign, accrual property income" to Company C. ...

In our telephone conversation (XXX/Guglich) you indicated that a view has been presented that although the generator and other equipment would be included in Class 1 under paragraph (k) or (m) the turbine could be considered a separate asset which is not electrical generating equipment. ... In our view all the assets used to produce the electrical energy would be considered to be "electrical generating equipment". Since the electrical energy is produced by an electrical generator which is run by a gas powered turbine both the generator and the turbine would be considered part of the electrical generating equipment. ...

PRINCIPAL ISSUES: Whether property acquired by a trust (the "first trust") as a consequence of a distribution of income and/or capital from another trust which had acquired the property in prescribed circumstances would be considered to have been acquired by the first trust in prescribed circumstances. ... Our Comments Section 5909 of the Regulations to the Act defines the term "prescribed circumstances" as follows: For the purposes of subparagraph 94(1)(b)(i) of the Act, property shall be considered to have been acquired in prescribed circumstances where it is acquired by virtue of a repayment of a loan. ... Therefore the Property could not be considered to have been acquired by Trust B in "prescribed circumstances" for the purposes of the preamble to subparagraph 94(1)(b)(i) of the Act. ...

Unfortunately, it does not appear that your organization would be considered a public authority. ... As noted in paragraph 15(d), a contribution of services to a charity is not considered a gift for tax purposes; however, there is nothing to prevent the charity from paying for the services and then accepting the return of all or a portion of the amount as a gift. ... The reimbursement of expenses by the charity is not considered income so the amount would not have to be included in business or employment income of the member. ...

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. ...

When a taxpayer can be considered to have acquired or reacquired beneficial ownership of property is a question of law which can only be determined based upon a complete review of all the relevant circumstances of a particular situation. ... As outlined in paragraph 10 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-159R3, it is the Department's general position that a debt will be considered uncollectible only when the creditor has exhausted all legal means of collecting it. Since the taxpayer, in year 2, would still have security (the property subject to the mortgage) and would not have exhausted all legal means of collection, the debt would not ordinarily be considered to have been established to be a bad debt in year 2. ...

It would provide an incentive for land owners to protect their natural areas if a donation of the restrictive covenant, to Her Majesty or to any registered charity willing to accept the restrictive covenant, could be considered a charitable gift. ... Since a restrictive covenant registered against land is a right it would be considered a property. Consequently a donation of a restrictive covenant registered against the land to Her Majesty or to a registered charity could be considered a gift for purposes of section 118.1 or 110.1 of the Income Tax Act. ...

It is a saving provision which ensures that one corporation which otherwise controls another corporation will not be considered to control where the Minister is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Its application extends to provisions such as the definition of a "Private Corporation" at paragraph 89(1)(f), the inadequate consideration rules at subsections 69(6) and (7) and other law where de facto control tests are not considered appropriate. The wording in those specific areas refer to "control" or "controlled", therefore in order to properly match or align the wording among these various provisions and subsection 256(6) it was considered necessary to include the phrase "controlled or controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" in the preamble to subsection 256(6). ...