Search - considered

Provided that the Custodian, through the Sub-CanCustodian, withhold and remits tax under Part XIII on behalf of a New Investor in the manner set out in paragraph 25 above, any amount paid by the Custodian in respect of a New Investor's Part XIII tax will be considered as being paid on behalf of the New Investor in respect of its Part XIII tax liability and both the New Investor and the Custodian through its Sub-CanCustodian will be considered to have complied with Part XIII in respect of the New Investor proportionate interest in the amount paid or credited in relation to the properties held by the CCF I. ... For the purposes of the Act, if the CCF redeems Units of a Unitholder: a. the Unitholder will generally be considered, for purposes of calculating any income, losses, capital gains and capital losses, to have disposed of a proportionate interest in the properties held by the CCF; b. the remaining Unitholders will generally be considered to have acquired that proportionate interest in the properties disposed of by the Unitholder; and c. the remaining Unitholders will generally be considered to have disposed of a proportionate interest in any properties used to redeem such Units and will generally calculate any income, losses, capital gains and capital losses on such disposition. For the purposes of the Act, if the CCF issues additional Units to any Unitholder: a. the existing Unitholders will generally be considered to have disposed of a proportionate interest in the properties held by the CCF and will generally calculate any income, losses, capital gains and capital losses on such dispositions; b. the Unitholder that acquires such additional Units will generally be considered to have acquired a proportionate interest in the properties disposed of by the existing Unitholders; and c. the existing Unitholders will generally be considered to have acquired a proportionate interest in any property contributed to the CCF as a result of the issuance of the additional Units. ...

For greater certainty, for the purposes of the proposed transactions: (i) any mortgages or notes receivable, other than any current portion thereof, received as consideration on the sale of XXXXXXXXXX inventory will be considered business property, the current portion thereof being considered cash or near-cash property; (ii) XXXXXXXXXX loans receivable, other than the current portion thereof, will be considered business property, the current portion thereof being considered cash or near-cash property; (iii) XXXXXXXXXX will be considered business property; and (iv) XXXXXXXXXX land held for development will be considered business property. ... The housing inventory of the DN Partnership will be considered business property to it. ... Amounts owing to related persons will be considered current liabilities. ...

Consistent with these comments, it is also our view that whether or not the Insurer is considered to be a "casualty insurer" for the purposes of paragraph 5 of IT-365R2 in relation to the periodic payments, is not normally considered to be a critical factor in determining whether the payments are exempt from income tax pursuant to that paragraph. ...

Reasons: There was support for providing the favourable ruling for the period when the shares held are subject to an escrow agreement and the results from the application of 47(1) and 7(1) are considered inappropriate. ... This result was considered abusive and the GAAR ruling could not be extended to cover this period. ...

Position TAKEN: Where the gold certificate evidences the ownership of a stated amount of gold bullion and is held as capital property, the exchange of same for such amount of gold bullion will not be considered to result in a disposition. ... We would note, however, that in the context of a gold certificate evidencing ownership of a stated amount of gold bullion and which is held as a capital property for purposes of the Act, the Department's view remains, as stated in the second sentence of paragraph 4 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-387R2, that an exchange of such a certificate for the corresponding amount of bullion will not be considered a disposition for purposes of the Act. ...

We understand that to the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers involved: (i)none of the issues involved in the requested rulings are being considered by a district taxation office or a taxation centre in connection with a tax return already filed, and (ii)none of the issues involved in the requested rulings are the subject of any notice of objection or is under appeal. Our understanding of the facts is as follows: FACTS XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX RULINGS Provided that the preceding statements constitute a complete and accurate disclosure of all of the relevant facts, proposed transactions and purpose of the proposed transactions, and provided that the proposed transactions are completed in the manner described above, our rulings are as follows: A.XXXXXXXXXX will be considered to be an association organized for any other purpose except profit with no part of its income payable to or otherwise available for the personal benefit of any member so that in any year in which it in fact operates on that basis, (this being a matter on which we do not rule since it is a question of fact the determination of which can only be made retrospectively for each taxation year) it will qualify for that year as a non-profit organization under paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Act and will be exempt from Part I tax upon its, otherwise, taxable income. ...

The Department has taken an administrative position that a CIDA project which is technically a PIDAP (i.e. funded only by way of grant) but for which the funding agreement was initially signed prior to April 1, 1986 as a loan agreement (regardless of whether loan funds were actually advanced), will not be considered a PIDAP notwithstanding the fact that such loan agreement may have been renegotiated and signed after March 31, 1986 as a contribution/grant agreement.  However, any CIDA project for which the funding agreement was not initially signed prior to April 1, 1986 as a loan agreement and thus is signed after March 31, 1986 as a contribution/grant agreement, will be considered to be a PIDAP within the meaning of section 3400 of the Regulations. ...

However, if the "use" condition in (a) is not met, the "similar business" condition in (b) does not have to be considered.  On the other hand, if the "use" condition in (a) is met, the "similar business" condition in (b) and the residency condition in (c) must still be considered and met if those "where" factors are present. ...

We are of the view that an investment which is not a foreign property (within the context of subsection 206(1) of the Act) in itself would not be considered foreign property should it be denominated in U.S. dollars. Furthermore, investment income and proceeds of disposition of such investments are not considered to be foreign property provided they are immediately converted to Canadian currency or promptly used to acquire property that is not foreign property. ...

Amounts are included in income under paragraph 12(1)(x) where an amount can reasonably be considered to have been received "(iii) as an inducement, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, deduction from tax, allowance or any other form of assistance, or (iv) as a reimbursement, contribution, allowance or as assistance, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, deduction from tax, allowance or any other form of assistance, in respect of the cost of the property or in respect of an expense". ... In addition, the proposed Superallowance and its related tax savings will not be considered as government assistance for purposes of paragraph 12(1)(x) or subsection 13(7.1). ...