Search - considered

Where a DSLP meets the conditions in paragraph 6801(a) of the Regulations, the amounts deferred under the DSLP will be exempt from being considered a salary deferral arrangement and will only be included in a participant's income as the amounts are eventually received under the terms of the plan. Where a condition in paragraph 6801(a) is no longer complied with, the participant would be considered to have terminated or withdrawn his or her participation in the plan at that time. ... Where a condition in paragraph 6801(a) of the Regulations is not complied with, the participant will be considered to have withdrawn his or her participation in the plan and the deferred amounts plus any unpaid income earned thereon will become taxable at that time (i.e. in this situation in 1998). ...

Reasons: Considered incidental, connection insufficient. December 8, 1998 Client Services Directorate HEADQUARTERS Ministerial Correspondence Division D. ... These Guidelines provide a method to determine when employment income is sufficiently connected to a reserve to be considered to be located there and, thus, exempt from tax. ... Where the time spent on reserve is minimal it is considered incidental and does not qualify for exemption. ...

In those instances, such as the one you have described, in which the ownership of a foreign business entity is not divided into units entitled “shares”, and in which the foreign business entity is considered to be a corporation, the Department views the foreign business entity as if it had capital stock of 100 issued shares. Each owner of a beneficial interest in the foreign business entity would be considered to own a number of shares proportionate to the owner’s beneficial interest in the foreign business entity. Accordingly, for purposes of the foreign affiliate rules, Delaware LLC would be considered as if it had capital stock of 100 shares, and each owner of a beneficial interest would be considered to own a number of shares proportionate to its beneficial interest in Delaware LLC. ...

Principal Issues: Whether farm land could be considered as non-farm use if more than 50% of its fair market value is derived from mineral rights or oil surface rights/leases. ... The determination of whether or not a particular property is considered to be used “principally in the course of carrying on the business of farming” and the fair market value of a property are questions of fact. ... If a particular asset does not meet the 50% farming business usage test it is considered to be an asset set aside for investment or non-farm use. ...

Where a third party reimburses the RRSP trust's expenses on the sale of the units, or off-sets the expense by transferring in new units of an equivalent value to the redemption fee, this would not be considered a contribution to the trust by the annuitant or a spouse as contemplated by subparagraph 146(1)(j)(ii) of the Income Tax Act (unless as otherwise stated all references to this statute are to the Income Tax Act S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 as amended, consolidated to June 10, 1993- the "Act"). Thus, the payment would not be considered a "premium" as defined in paragraph 146(1)(f) of the Act and would not be deductible pursuant to subsection 146(5) of the Act. ... Thus, a reimbursement or off-setting of the fee by a third party would not be considered a payment by or on behalf of the subscriber. ...

On the other hand, the deduction of `normal' contributions is limited because a deduction can not be made under the provisions allowing annual contributions, for any "premium" that would be considered to be withdrawn under the Home Buyers Plan less than 90 days after it was paid if earnings of the RRSP are considered to be withdrawn first and the premiums are considered to be withdrawn in the order in which they were received. ... For this purpose the amount deductible is calculated as follows: Premiums paid in the year as normal contributions: $30,000 Premiums paid as a transfer from the RRIF: 30,000 Total premiums: $60,000 less: amount deducted under 60(l) $30,000 amount considered to be withdrawn under the Home buyers plan: 30,000 60,000 Normal contribution deduction allowed: nil The above comments are based on our understanding of the draft legislation as presently proposed. ...

The Queen, 92 DTC 6320, employment income was considered to be situated at the location of the employer. ... Related payments, such as U.I. benefits, were considered to be located at the payer's principal place of business. As the federal government is not situated on the reserve, any U.I. benefits which it paid were considered taxable to the recipient. ...

All representations received from interested parties will be considered before finalizing the Guidelines. ... Central management and control of an organization is normally considered to be exercised by the group that performs the function of a Board of Directors of the organization. ... Once all the representations received have been considered, the Guidelines will be finalized and, at that time, I will send you a copy of the finalized Guidelines. ...

As indicated in paragraph 21 of Information Circular 70-6R2 dated September 28, 1990, a request for a written opinion on a completed transaction is generally considered by the taxpayer's local district office. ... The XXXXXXXXXX cannot, however, issue receipts for donations made to the XXXXXXXXXX since such donations would not be considered a gift to the XXXXXXXXXX. As regards your second question, gifts to a housing corporation exempt from tax under paragraph 149(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") are considered to be charitable gifts for which receipts can be issued. ...

You asked whether such partnership property would be a "former business property" as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act and, more particularly, you are concerned whether that property may be considered to have been used by "a person related to the taxpayer" as required by that definition. ... However, subsection 251(2) of the Act does not provide that partnerships may be considered to be "related persons" or "persons related to each other". Also, since in the particular scenario described above, the other partnership would not be involved in the computation of income, that partnership, therefore, would not be considered to be a person. ...