Search - considered

Subsequent activities such as crushing, washing, screening and sorting of the mineral material in order to make the product of the mine or pit marketable are considered to be processing activities. ... You have indicated that it is your opinion that if a road contractor processes material and places the material on a road the activity would be considered to be construction. ... Accordingly, we agree with your conclusion that if a road contactor processes material and places the material on a road the activity would be considered to be construction. ...

However, we have considered your situation and provide the general comments set out below. ... Residence for purposes of the Treaty In order to qualify for the benefits under the Treaty, the individual must be considered a resident of Israel for the purposes of Treaty. ... It is our position that for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article XXI of the Treaty, it does not suffice that a person is considered "liable to tax" for the purposes of Article IV of the Treaty. ...

However, each year's renovations & additions are considered a separate property. ... The Queen, 86 DTC 6521 considered the issue of "... whether property used or held in the course of carrying on business... ... The issue was also considered in the case of Marsh and MacLennan v. The Queen, 83 DTC 5180. ...

We suggest that the entire visit would be considered sojourning, notwithstanding that the visit may include a flight or other employment related duties. ... Our Comments The Earlier Memo attempted to provide guidelines on how to distinguish whether airline personnel could be considered commuting during their stays in Canada in which case the days spent in Canada would not be considered "sojourning". ... Such periods in our view qualify as "sojourning" and could not be considered commuting because all or substantially all of MR. ...

Position: (a) Yes (b) Yes Reasons: (a) Considering the ordinary meaning of the term "gas", it is our view that the pipeline may be considered as gas or oil well equipment by virtue of paragraph (b) of the definition of the expression under subsection 1104(2) of the Regulations. ... (b) By analogy to the case of Texaco Exploration Company, it is our view that the operations of the company up to the inlet separator of the second plant may be considered as production of natural gas and related hydrocarbons for the purpose of subparagraph 1204(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations. ... Considering the above-noted definition of "gas", it is our view that the second pipeline may be considered as gas or oil well equipment by virtue of paragraph (b) of the definition of the expression under subsection 1104(2) of the Regulations. ...

Reasons: The main purpose of the trips is considered to be personal.. ... An individual's regular place of work is considered to be the place where the individual reports for work. ... Access is considered to end when an employee returns the keys of the automobile to the employer. ...

The Technical Explanation indicates that the U.S. resident is considered to derive the Canadian-source dividends for purposes of the Canada-U.S. Treaty and thus, the dividends are considered as being “paid to” the U.S. resident. ... LLC is not considered for purposes of the application of the Treaty to be a “resident” of the U.S. ...

If subsection 115.2(2) applies, the non-resident limited partners will not be considered to be carrying on business in Canada for purposes of subsections 115(1) and 150(1), Part XIV of the Act and section 805 of the Regulations as a result of those loan origination activities. (ii) Where non-resident partners are not otherwise considered to be carrying on business in Canada, they would not be considered to be carrying on business in Canada solely by reason of the Canadian service provider or GP performing administrative functions in Canada. ... Therefore, where a non-resident limited partner is not considered to be carrying on business in Canada, by reason of the application of subsection 115.2(2) or otherwise, the non-resident limited partner will not be considered to be carrying on a business in Canada solely by reason of the Manager performing administrative functions in Canada. ...

Reasons: Each class of shares must be considered separately for purposes of satisfying the "regularly traded" test. ... If each class of shares must be considered separately for purposes of satisfying the de minimis or 10-percent tests in the U.S. tax regulations, very few Canadian corporations with multiple classes of voting shares will be considered "qualifying persons" for purposes of the LOB clause. ... CRA Response The CRA is currently of the view that each class of shares must be considered separately for the purposes of satisfying the de minimis and the 10 percent test. ...

Principal Issues: Will a corporation that is a member of a limited partnership be considered to employ the employees of the limited partnership for purposes of the test in clause 206(1.1)(d)(iii)(A? ... You have asked if the employees of the partnership would be considered to be employees of the corporate partner for the purposes of clause 206(1.1)(d)(iii)(A) of the Act. ... In our view, for the purposes of clause 206(1.1)(d)(iii)(A) of the Act, the majority interest corporate partner of the partnership will be considered to employ more than 5 employees if those employees are employed by the partnership. ...