Search - considered

In our view, unless such shares constitute either capital property or inventory to the holder, they will not be considered to be "eligible property" within the meaning of subsection 85(1.1) of the Act. ... As the circumstances of sale are usually considered relevant in determining whether the property was held on income account, as an adventure in the nature of trade or on account of capital, it might not be possible to determine, prior to the ultimate sale to a third party, whether any gain realized on the ultimate sale would be considered to be an income gain.  ...

As indicated to you previously by telephone, whether a resident of the United Kingdom has a permanent establishment in Canada for purposes of the Canada-United Kingdom Income Tax Convention (the "Convention") is essentially a question of fact that generally can only be determined retrospectively after all of the relevant facts have been determine and considered.  ... We can, however, advise that it is our opinion that the fact that an enterprise of the United Kingdom carries on business in Canada through several agents (rather than merely one agent) of an independent status, where such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business, does not in and of itself render paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention inapplicable and does not in and of itself result in such enterprise of the United Kingdom being considered to have a permanent establishment in Canada. The opinions expressed herein are not advance income tax rulings and, in accordance with paragraph 21 of Information Circular 70-6R2 dated September 28, 1990, are not considered binding on the Department. ...

Furthermore, horses used in a riding business would not be considered inventory of that business.  ... This means that although the original cost of acquiring the horses, as well as the cost of any expansion in the number of such animals, is considered a capital-expenditure, the cost of replacing these horses is considered a deductible expense in the year of replacement. ...

Our position is unchanged from that stated in the February 21, 1983 letter in which we opined that a corporation deriving its income primarily from the provision of services would not be considered a "principal business corporation" within the meaning of paragraph 66(15)(h) of the Act, notwithstanding that the services provided are in respect of activities described therein. ... The determination would be one of fact which must be considered by reference to the various activities in which the corporation is engaged.  All activities of the corporation throughout the relevant taxation year must be considered. ...

In addition, the "primary use" of the asset is considered relevant in distinguishing between an inventory item and capital property.  ... The Department has recognized that items, which are consumed in the income earning process or are technically obsolete due to changing customer requirements, would be considered inventory subject to valuation within the meaning of subsection 10(1) of the Act despite arguments that such items in some cases could be considered capital.  ...

25 February 1991 Ministerial Letter 902928 F- Self-employed Re'al Estate Agents Unedited CRA Tags 125(1), 125(7) Canadian-controlled private corporation Dear Sirs: Re:  Self-Employed Real Estate Agents This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1990 and subsequent facsimile transmissions of January 15, 1991 wherein you ask whether a self-employed real estate agent may incorporate, utilize the small business deduction and not be considered an incorporated employee as envisaged in paragraph 125(7)(d) of the Act. ... Where the corporation is providing the services of an independent contractor, it is not considered to be providing the services of an "incorporated employee".  As a result, income earned by the corporation is not considered income earned by a personal services business as envisaged in paragraph 125(7)(d) of the Act. ...

The relevant characteristics to be considered would include the obligation's provisions with respect to interest, repayment and consequences of default. The Certificate and the Deposits differ from the other obligations identified as they are both considered deposit instruments and may or may not be secured under the Bank Act.  ... However, depending on the particular circumstances and regardless of their classification as deposit instruments, the Certificates and the Deposits might be considered sufficiently similar to unsecured notes to qualify as similar obligations. ...

In our telephone conversation (19(1)/Guglich) you indicated that a view has been presented that although the generator and other equipment would be included in Class 1 under paragraph (k) or (m) the turbine could be considered a separate asset which is not electrical generating equipment. ... In our view all the assets used to produce the electrical energy would be considered to be "electrical generating equipment". Since the electrical energy is produced by an electrical generator which is run by a gas powered turbine both the generator and the turbine would be considered part of the electrical generating equipment. ...

The basis for this position is as follows: (1) The Financial Administration Act revers only to the remission of "tax, fee or penalty" in section 23. (2) Based on an informal legal opinion obtained some 15 years ago, it was indicated that there was legal support for the view that interest could properly be considered as a "tax" for purposes of section 17 (now 23) of the F.A.A. (3) Since in economic terms interest charges can be considered to be compensation payable by the taxpayer to the government for use of funds that are rightfully the government's once a tax debt becomes due, collection of interest charges was not considered an unfair burden to a taxpayer in cases where it was accepted that the tax debt upon which it was based was legitimate. ...

As stated in paragraph 19 of the Department's Interpretation Bulletin IT-470R, where the course for which the fees were paid was undertaken on the employer's initiative and for the benefit of the employer rather than the employee, the amount paid by the employer is not considered to be a taxable benefit to the employee. ... It is always a question of fact as to whether or not the course taken is primarily for the benefit of the employer (and considered not to be a taxable benefit to the employee) or to the benefit of the employee (and considered a taxable benefit). ...