Search - considered

Your questions are: 1. whether the amount reimbursed by the registrant to the employee for the GST paid by the employee on the purchase of the new residence will also be considered not to be a taxable benefit for income tax purposes; and, 2. would the registrant be entitled to an input tax credit for the GST reimbursed to the employee on the purchase of the new residence? Department's Position: Section 175 of the ETA provides that when an employer, partnership or charity (hereafter called the "person") reimburses an employee, member of a partnership or a volunteer who gives services to a charity for expenses incurred by the individual on behalf of the person and the amount reimbursed includes GST, the tax is considered to have been paid by the person. ... Examples of these types of expenditures relating to the new residence which would be considered taxable benefits to an employee if reimbursed by the employer include painting, papering, new rugs, drapes, blinds or curtains, pre-purchase inspection fees, appraisal fees, new home warranty fees, finders fees as well as the GST payable on the purchase of a new residence. ...

3) If the permits for the water are in fact obtained by the client, is the client (e.g. a road contractor) then considered to be engaged in making an exempt supply of water if he in turn itemizes a charge for water to his client (e.g. a municipality)? ... Based on the facts provided, scenarios 1, 2, and 3 discussed above are all considered to be exempt supplies of unbottled water under section 23. ... Where permits to extract water are required and the water hauler acquires the permit in his own name the supply is considered to be one of unbottled water under section 23. ...

Interpretation Requested You have requested our comments with respect to whether XXXXX can be considered a beneficiary for purposes of section 175.1 of the Excise Tax Act (ETA), and whether the supplies from XXXXX to XXXXX and XXXXX can be considered insurance since XXXXX and XXXXX are policyholders. Our Comments Based on the information provided we conclude that XXXXX cannot be considered to be a beneficiary for purposes of section 175.1 of the ETA. ... The recipients are still considered to be the customers since they are the persons liable to pay the premium under both policy agreements. ...

Issue You have asked us whether the sale of one piece of Lot 3 will be considered taxable under the subject reference. ... This new lot is considered the "parcel" for purposes of paragraph 9(2)(c) Part I Schedule V. The subsequent division of the parcel into reconfigured lots would be considered the relevant subdivision or severance of land for purposes of applying paragraph 9(2)(c). ...

This is considered to be a supply of intangible personal property (IPP) for GST/HST purposes. ... A supply of IPP is considered to be made in a province if all or substantially all of the "Canadian rights" ("Canadian rights" refers to that part of the IPP that can be used in Canada.) in respect of the property may be used only in that particular province (Subparagraph 2(d)(i) of Part III of Schedule IX). ... Where there are no restrictions regarding the use of the IPP in a particular province, it will always be considered that the property may be used otherwise than exclusively outside the province where the place of negotiation occurred. ...

As indicated in Technical Information Bulletin B-090, GST/HST and Electronic Commerce, it is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)'s view that a supply of IPP can be considered to be made in Canada even if it is not actually used in Canada. ... As you know, where there are no restrictions regarding the place of use of the IPP, generally, it is considered that the IPP may be used in Canada. ... Therefore, even if the server is located outside Canada, in this situation, the supply is considered to be made in Canada as Corporation A may access, execute and operate the software application via the Internet from a computer located in Canada. ...

Interpretation Given The scenario at issue in Policy P-238 merely illustrates the CCRA's general position that the tax status of employee transactions depends on who is considered the employer. Generally, where a person incurs an expense in the capacity of agent on behalf of principals involved in a cost-sharing arrangement, the expense would be considered incurred and the supply would be considered received by the principals and not the agent. The payment made to the agent by the principals for the reimbursement of this expense is not subject to tax, although the fees related to the services of acting on behalf of the principals are considered taxable. ...

The application of specific place of supply rules for certain types of services must be considered before the application of the general place of supply rule for services is considered. ... If something else comes between the service and the TPP, the connection will not be considered to be direct. ... Finally, in order for a service to be considered in relation to particular TPP that is situated at a particular location, and in order to apply the place of supply rules for these types of services, the service must relate to specific TPP that can be determined to be situated at a particular location at a particular time. ...

For GST/HST purposes, A is considered to be supplying 100 pallets to B for the fair market value of the pallets it receives in exchange; conversely, B is considered to supply 100 pallets to A for the fair market value of pallets it receives in exchange. ... B is also considered to have made a supply for the fair market value of the pallets it receives in exchange for the pallets it supplied, but because B is not a GST/HST registrant, B does not have the obligation to collect and remit tax. ... When these pallets are "returned" to XXXXX who supplied them, there are two possible treatments. • The person "returning" the pallet can be considered to be "selling" that pallet back to the supplier who sold it. ...

The payments from the XXXXX to developers for the cost of qualifying infrastructure works supplied to the City are considered to be consideration for taxable supplies of services, from the developers to the City. The payments from the XXXXX to the developers for the cost of the underlying land transferred to the City are considered to be consideration for taxable supplies of real property, from the developers to the City. ... City: (i) Supply of Services: Where a developer is considered to have made a taxable supply of services to the City, the latter is required to pay the GST to the developer who has supplied the services. ...