Search - considered

Your first question is whether the four owners should be considered as one entity, the three owners considered a separate entity and the transfer treated as one to which subsection 148(7) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") applies.  ...

B)     Taxability of the 24(1)      It is your view that.. if the organization is considered an extension of the 24(1) it may qualify for exempt status under paragraph 149(1)(e) of the Act. ... Assuming that the Registration Division confirms that the objects and statement of activities provided by you do not reflect the activities of a charity, we would also advise that paragraph 8 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-496 should be considered. 21(1)(b)  In such a case, the corporation would not meet the operated exclusively" test in paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Act and would not qualify as a non-profit organization within the meaning of that paragraph.       ...

A dwelling will generally be considered to be acquired for an individuals habitation if the individual "ordinarily inhabits" the residence within the meaning of that term as set out in paragraph 9 of Interpretation Bulletin 120R3 (IT-120R3). ... The demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a new one is generally considered as a new dwelling for the purposes of subparagraph 15(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. ...

However, a depreciable property is not considered to have been acquired until a capital cost has been incurred in respect of that property. ... Thus where a gas station operator (operating under a lease) installs an underground gas storage tank and paves or installs a driveway on leased land they would be leasehold improvements to the operator for purposes of paragraph 1100(1)(b) of the Income Tax Regulations. c)     As an underground storage tank or a paved driveway is not "a building or structure" neither would be included in Class 1 by virtue of Regulation 1102(5). d)     As the in-ground gas storage tank and parking lot in question are affixed to the land, they are considered leasehold improvements as discussed in b) above and would be included in the same Class 13. ...

Thus, the funding received by the taxpayer would not be considered as a loan to which the provisions of subsection 80(1) could be applied, but rather, as income of the taxpayer. ... Repayment of the Funding 24(1) Where the taxpayer has satisfied all of the provisions of subsection 13(7.4) of the Act and, as a consequence, the funding or portion thereof has reduced the deemed capital cost of the depreciable property would include amounts of the funding which have been repaid pursuant to a legal obligation to repay all or any portion of that amount which may reasonably be considered to be in respect of the amount elected under subsection 13(7.4) in respect of the property. ...

However, if the corporation owned both property that would be considered to be taxable Canadian property and property that would not be considered to be taxable Canadian property immediately before its shareholders became Canadian residents its shares would be taxable Canadian property before that particular time.  ...

A payment made in any previous year of the foreign affiliate that at the time might have been paid in respect of active business income may retrospectively be reasonably considered to be in respect of an amount included in computing a taxpayer's income by virtue of subsection 91(1) of the Act in a later year in a situation where the foreign tax law provides for the carry-back of tax losses and the affiliate has incurred both an active business loss and FAPI income in the later year.  ... In addition, we would question whether city taxes would be considered income on profits taxes and therefore whether an amount in respect of city taxes would be deductible under subsection 91(4) of the Act. for DirectorReorganizations and Non-Resident DivisionRulings DirectorateLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch ...

If the conditions of an agreement are similar to those in paragraph 3(b) of IT-233R, the agreement is generally not considered to be a lease. ...

Fontaine Acting Director 957-9228 Appeals & Referrals Division Subject: 24(1) v MNR Tax Court of Canada We have considered the Reasons for Judgment in respect of the above-noted case heard on November 7, 1989 and it is our view that the adverse decision should be appealed for the following reasons: 1.      2.      3.     24(1) 4.      ...

Since 24(1)contest involves prizes that will be paid into the winners' RRSPs, the chance to win such a prize is not considered to be an advantage under paragraph 146(2)(c.4) of the Act. for DirectorFinancial Industries DivisionRulings Directorate   ...