Search - considered

Principal Issues: Whether a proposed disclaimer by the spouse of a spouse trust, of an entitlement to capital of the trust is effective so as to enable a residual beneficiary, which is a charitable organization, to be considered to have received an equitable interest in the trust that can be valued for purposes of subsection 118.1(5) of the Act? ... To the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers involved, none of the issues involved in this ruling: a) is in an earlier return of the Estate or a related person; b) is being considered by a tax services office or a taxation centre in connection with a previously filed income tax return of the Estate or a related person; c) is under objection by the Estate or a related person; d) is or has been before the courts; or e) is the subject of a ruling previously considered by the Income Tax Rulings Directorate in respect of the Estate or a related person. ...

Principal Issues: Is an amount paid by a farmer to his spouse considered a reasonable retiring allowance given that the spouse worked for XXXXXXXXXX years but was only T4'D for XXXXXXXXXX years? ... To the best of your knowledge and that of the Employer and the Employee, none of the issues involved in this request for an advance income tax ruling: a) is in an earlier return of the Employer or the Employee or of a person related to the Employer or the Employee; b) is being considered by a tax services office or taxation center in connection with a previously filed return of the Employer or the Employee or a person related to the Employer or the Employee; c) is under objection by the Employer or the Employee or by a person related to the Employer or Employee; d) is before the courts; nor e) is the subject of a ruling previously issued by the Income Tax Rulings Directorate. ... The amount of $XXXXXXXXXX will be deductible by the Employer in computing income from the business of farming for the year in which it is paid and will be considered reasonable for the purposes of section 67 of the Act. ...

REASON: A refund of a dividend overpayment would generally not, for the purpose of section 9 and paragraph 12(1)(x) be considered to have been received in the course of earning income from a business. ... We understand that to the best of your knowledge and that of the taxpayers involved: i) none of the issues involved in the requested ruling is being considered by any District Tax Services Office or Taxation Centre of the Department in connection with a tax return already filed, and ii) none of the issues involved in the requested ruling is the subject of any notice of objection or is under appeal. ... Ruling Provided that the above description of facts, proposed transactions, purpose of the proposed transaction and other information are accurate and constitute a complete and accurate disclosure of all of the relevant facts, proposed transactions and the purpose thereof, and provided further that the holder of a Distress Preferred Share that is redeemed prior to XXXXXXXXXX treats the repayment of the dividend as a reduction of a taxable dividend and not as a deductible expense, we rule as follows: An amount received by Subco, pursuant to the Prepayment Agreement, from a holder of a Distress Preferred Share as a repayment of a portion of the dividend prepayment on a Distress Preferred Share that is redeemed by Subco before XXXXXXXXXX will not, for the purpose of section 9 or paragraph 12(1)(x), be considered to be received by Subco in the course of earning income from a business or property. ...

Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN: The terms of the settlement are considered to be consistent with the Department's position set out in IT-365R2 (in particular paragraphs 3 and 5). ... To the best of your knowledge, and that of the taxpayer involved, none of the issues contained herein is, in an earlier return of the taxpayer or a related person, being considered by a tax services office or taxation centre in connection with a previously filed tax return of the taxpayer or a related person or is under objection by the taxpayer or a related person and is before the courts or, if a judgement has been issued, the time limit for appeal to a higher court has not expired. ... The Claimant is considered an incomplete quadriplegic. 3. The Claimant commenced an action (XXXXXXXXXX) in the Court of Queen's Bench of XXXXXXXXXX against the persons named therein (the "Defendants"). ...

A Forward Contract C described in the present letter entered into between the Fund and Counterparty C, and which is substantially similar to the draft Forward Contract C submitted will not be considered to be foreign property as defined in subsection 206(1) of the Act Reasons: 2. ... Since the Forward Contract C describes in the ruling is settled in Canadian dollars and does not entitle the Fund to units of the Underlying Fund, and the Contract would not otherwise be considered foreign property based on the situs of the contract and does not involve the indebtedness of a nonresident person, we can reasonably conclude that the Forward Contract C is not foreign property. ... With respect to the above proposed transaction we confirm:- that Ruling C given in the Original Ruling will apply in respect of Forward Contract C;- our additional Ruling (after Ruling D given in the Original Ruling) which reads: D.1 A Forward Contract C as described above entered into between the Fund and Counterparty C, and which is substantially similar to the draft Forward Contract C submitted will not be considered to be foreign property as defined in subsection 206(1).- that the above-mentioned additional proposed transaction together with Ruling D.1 will not invalidate Rulings A to E given in the Original Ruling. ...

To the best of your knowledge and that of the Company and Clients, the issues related to this request: (a) have not previously been reported in the Company's, Participants' or any related party's prior income tax returns; (b) are not being. considered by a tax services office in connection with any of the Participants' or a related party's prior income tax return; (c) are not under objection by the Participants or a related person; (d) are not before the courts; and (e) are not the subject of a ruling previously issued by this Directorate. Rulings Provided the above statement of facts and proposed transactions are accurate and constitute a complete disclosure of all relevant facts and provided the transactions are completed as proposed, we rule as follows: A. an amount received as a Rebate will not be considered to be received as consideration under the Client plan for purposes of paragraph 146.3(2)(f) of the Act B. the Rebate will not be considered a gift to the Client for the purposes of subsection 146.3(3) of the Act: C. the Rebate will not be a payment described in subsection 201(1) of the Income Tax Regulations and thus no information return in prescribed form is required in respect of the payment of the Rebate; and D. the Rebate paid to the Client will be deductible by the Company under subsection 9(1) of the Act in computing its income from business for the year in which the amount is incurred subject to the provisions of section 67 of the Act. ...

In certain circumstances, amounts paid to another person at the taxpayer's direction are considered to be received by the taxpayer. ... The amount is considered to be income or capital to the taxpayer in the same way it would have been if the taxpayer had received the amount directly. ... A charitable donation credit will only be available if the taxpayer's are considered to have made a gift to the College. ...

The Bulletin goes on to say that income from sources other than those enumerated, is generally considered to be located at the payor's principal place of business for purposes of determining whether or not it is on a reserve.  ... Payments out of an RRSP, not being interest but income, are thus considered sourced at the Bank's Head Office.  ... Where their income is non-taxable they would get no deduction for the purchase of an RRSP but any payments out of the RRSP would be considered, as in all cases, as income subject to tax.  ...

Under 13(27)(c) & (28)(d) a t/p is considered to have acquired property immediately before disposition if none of the other times occur earlier. ... This is based on the wording of section 127(11.2) whereby "For the purposes of this section and section 127.1, property described in subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition "investment tax credit" in subsection (9) [which includes qualified Property, qualified transportation equipment, qualified construction equipment, approved project property or certified property acquired in the year] shall be deemed not to have been acquired.... by a taxpayer before the property is considered to have become available for use by the taxpayer determined without reference to paragraphs 13(27)(c) and 28(d)". ... Where the property has not been put to any use for an extended period of time after it was acquired or, if used, not for its intended use, the property may still be considered acquired "to be used" or "for use" if the taxpayer can show sound business reasons as to why it is not being used as originally intended". ...

In addition, the payments would not be considered to be non-government assistance.  ... Our Comments We offer the following comments concerning the above issues: 1)     We concur with the taxpayer that paragraph (c) of the definition of "contract payment" in subsection 127(9) of the Act does not apply since the U.S. parent is not entitled to a deduction under clause 37(1)(a)(ii)(D) of the Act as it is not subject to Canadian income tax. 2)     We agree with the taxpayer that the payments are not considered to be "non-government assistance".  ... Provided the taxpayer includes the amounts in income under subsection 9(1) of the Act pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, the amounts would not be considered "non-government assistance". 3)     As the payments are neither "contract payments" nor "non-government assistance" it is our opinion that paragraph 127(11.1)(c) of the Act would not cause a reduction in the amount of qualified expenditures for the purposes of the definition of "investment tax credit" in subsection 127(9) of the Act. 4)     We also agree with the taxpayer that subparagraph 2902(e)(ii) of the Regulations is not applicable as the U.S. parent is not subject to Canadian income tax. 5)     In our opinion, the determination of whether a taxpayer is "entitled to exploit the results" of an SR $ ED project, as that term is used in subparagraph 37(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is generally a question of fact dependent upon the contractual arrangements that exist between the parties.  ...