Search - considered

It would appear from our reading of the translation of the German decision that the German court considered that the vendor/licensor, not the purchaser/licensee, is the person upon whom the German VAT is imposed and who is liable therefore and that accordingly the VAT is included in the vendor's/licensor's income for income tax purposes as described in the first paragraph on page 2 of our Memorandum to you dated May 7, 1991, namely: "If, on the other hand, the VAT is a tax imposed on the vendor/licensor as the person primarily liable therefore (as opposed to merely being liable in its capacity as a collecting agent with an absolute obligation to collect), as appears to be indicated in the letter to you from the German competent authority dated August 17, 1990, we would be inclined to conclude that the entire amount payable to or for the account of the vendor/licensor or for which the vendor/licensor obtained credit against its VAT liability by virtue of action taken by the purchaser/licensee would be "consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright, (etc.)... ... " As indicated by our Memorandum to you in respect of this matter dated May 7, 1991, while we considered it likely that the German VAT, like the Canadian GST, is a tax on the purchaser/licensee rather than on the vendor/licensor, we were unable to determine the German law in this regard.  ...

While these guideline may be useful in most cases, other factors may also effect the determination of whether or not any particular place can be considered "remote" in this context.  ... If you have a particular situation in which it is not clear whether or not a particular place is considered remote, you may wish to forward all the relevant details to the local district taxation office in order to obtain their view. ...

9 January 1991 Ruling 903543 F- Transfer of Property to Corporation Unedited CRA Tags 39(1)(a), 54 adjusted cost base, 54 capital property, 55(3)(b), 85(1) Dear Sir: Re: Request for Technical Interpretation We are writing in response to your letter of December 5, 1990 wherein you requested our comments on whether the gain on the sale of transferred assets, which were capital property of the transferor, by the transferee immediately after the transfer would be considered a capital gain or income from an adventure or concern in the nature of trade in the following hypothetical situation: 1.      ... The comment expressed is not an advance income tax ruling and is not considered binding on the Department, in respect of any taxpayer, in accordance with paragraph 21 of Information Circular 70-6R2 dated September 28, 1990. ...

However, we do offer the following general comments: It is our opinion that an amendment to an employee stock option plan addressing what will happen in the event of a takeover or reorganization would not in and of itself be considered so fundamental a change to the agreement as to constitute a new agreement.  ... If however, the intent and effect of the amendment is to make available to the employees shares that are fundamentally different than those contemplated by the original agreement, then it could be argued that a fundamental or cornerstone item of the Plan has significantly been altered (e.g. the type of share being offered to participating employees may now include shares of a Parent Company) and as a result could be considered to render the old agreement extinguished. ...

To be valid for purposes of the Income Tax Act, a disclaimer must not be made in favour of any person or the disclaimer will be considered to be a disposition of the disclaiming beneficiary's interest in the estate.  A disposition not at arms length would be considered to occur at the fair market value of the interest. ...

In the circumstances, (a)       will the taxpayer be considered to have disposed of the building alone, or both the building and the land? ... Answer (a)       The taxpayer will be considered to have disposed of the building alone upon demolition thereof.  ...

A loan is considered to be a home relocation loan if, among other requirements, it is received by an employee in the circumstances where he has commenced employment at a location in Canada and by reason thereof, has moved from a residence in Canada to another residence in Canada which is 40 kilometres closer to the location of the new employment than was the previous residence.  In order to be considered a home relocation loan, it is not necessary that the employment prior to and subsequent to the move be with the same employer. ...

Subco 3, as the non-surviving corporation in the merger described in paragraph 19 above, will be considered to have disposed of all of its assets and liabilities. ... As a result of the merger described in paragraph 20 above, Subco 1, Subco 2 and Subco 4, as the non-surviving corporations, will be considered to have disposed of their assets and liabilities to Absorbco. ... Such settlement will be considered a repayment for the purposes of the application of paragraph 20(1)(m.2) and the amount of the repayment will be equal to the cost amount of the advance to Absorbco at that time. ...

Principal Issues: Will a grant from a U.S. charity with the purpose of providing XXXXXXXXXX financial assistance to employees due to XXXXXXXXXX be considered a taxable employment benefit, or otherwise be included in income? ... For greater certainty, an Employee's length of service and performance reviews are not considered in determining whether an amount is granted or the quantum of that grant. 17. ... The Fund received a ruling from the IRS that the grants made to Non-Canadian Employees by the Fund are considered non-taxable gifts under U.S. tax law. ...

Comments We are not providing any confirmation as to whether any particular employee of the Entity will be considered "resident on Reserve" for purposes of determining whether his or her employment income will be considered tax exempt for purposes of Ruling A above. ... Further, for purposes of Ruling B above, it is the general position of the Canada Revenue Agency that when time spent on the reserve is minimal such that it is considered incidental in relation to the Member's employment duties off reserve, this time will not be considered a strong connection to the reserve for purposes of determining a tax-exemption using the Guidelines. Specifically, where a Member's time on reserve is limited to the time spent at the Office while awaiting transportation to an off-reserve location as described in 22 above, this time, in and of itself, will be considered incidental time spent on reserve and hence not qualify for the tax-exemption. ...