Search - considered

We have been asked whether a settlement arrangement will still be considered a structured settlement, as contemplated in IT-365R2, if the annuity contracts referred to above were commutable after the death of the claimant. ... Accordingly, under such an arrangement, the payments remaining under the guarantee period must not be capable of commutation in the event of the death of the claimant during such guarantee period in order for the arrangement to be considered a structured settlement as contemplated in IT-365R2. With respect to the annuity contract to fund the care element under a settlement arrangement, such contract must be non-commutable during the life of the claimant in order for the arrangement to be considered a structured settlement as contemplated in IT-365R2. ...

Cash or near cash property is considered to be used principally in the business if its withdrawal would destabilize the business. 3. Cash which is temporarily surplus to the needs of the business and is invested in short-term income producing investments could be considered to be used in the business. 4. Cash or near cash which is surplus to the needs of the business over the long term would not generally be considered to be used in the business. 5. ...

You also enquire as to whether a person who has retired and returned to work for the same employer in a casual capacity would still be considered retired. ... As a consequence thereof, a payment received by the employee in respect of any such departure would not be considered a retiring allowance. It is to be noted that the question of whether an employee has really suffered a loss of employment or has retired can only be determined after all the facts and the terms and conditions of the contract have been considered. ...

It is our view the portion of the tax paid, which relates to "net income", (shown with an * asterisk above) would be considered as an income or profits tax paid to a government other than Canada. However, when such tax is based on capital, or on a minimum tax liability, it would not be considered as a business-income tax for the purposes of paragraph 126 (7)(a) of the Act. ... When non-refundable taxes are imposed under this legislation which are not considered to be "Income and Profits" taxes from a business carried on by the taxpayer pursuant to paragraph 126(7)(a), they would still be deductible in the computation of taxable income pursuant to section 18 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. ...

(iii) Facts as for example (i), except that the 1988 drilling expenses were originally considered to be CEE. ... (iv) Facts as for example (i), except that the 1988 drilling expenses were originally considered to be CEE, and no accumulation is found at the deeper zone, so the well is plugged back to the original reservoir, from which it continues to produce. ... According to an assessing policy, well recompletion costs related to the portion of the well that was drilled in 1993, the portion of the well that had been drilled in 1988 and the level where production was taken prior to the discovery of the new reserves, are considered to be Canadian exploration expense in accordance with 66.1(6)(a)(ii.1)(A). ...

As noted in paragraph 2 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-290 the word "principal" is considered synonymous with the words chief and main, however, for the purpose of paragraph 125(7)(e) it is the principal purpose of the business which must be considered rather than the principal business as discussed in IT-290. In our opinion since it is a purpose test which is involved in this provision all the relevant factors concerning the income earning process of a particular situation would have to be considered to determine whether or not the income derived constituted income from property, i.e., the source of the revenue would not necessarily be the only relevant factor in determining whether or not the revenue would constitute income from property. ... It is our opinion that normally a full-service motel operation would be providing a sufficient level of services such that it would not be considered to constitute a business the "principal purpose of which is to derive income from property. ...

In accordance with Interpretation Bulletin IT-392, each class of membership in the Texas LLC would be considered to comprise a single class of the capital stock of the LLC consisting of 100 issued shares and each owner of a beneficial interest in each class of membership in the LLC is then considered to own a number of shares proportionate to his beneficial interest in that particular class of membership. Each amount distributed on account of profits by the Texas LLC to its owners will be considered dividends for the purpose of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. If the Texas LLC is treated as a partnership for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code") such that the shareholders ("partners") rather than the company are liable to tax under the Code on the income of the company, such company will not be considered to be a resident of the U.S. under paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Canada-U.S. ...

The effect of the Jay Treaty was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Louis Francis v. ... The Jay Treaty was recently considered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the 1993 case of Regina v. ... The effect of the Indian Act was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Glenn Williams case (92 DTC 6320). ...

14 February 1994 External T.I. 9330405 F- Capital Gains Exemption Unedited CRA Tags 110.6(1) qualified small business corporation share PRINCIPAL ISSUES: Whether a farm house can be considered a business asset for the purposes of the definition of a "qualified small business corporation share" in subsection 110.6(1) of the Act, if the house was used as a home for the person operating the farm business and their family. ... You enquire as to whether a farm house would be considered a business asset for the purposes of the definition of a "qualified small business corporation share", in subsection 110.6(1) of the Act, if the house was used as a home for the person operating the farm business and their family. ... If all the foregoing conditions are met, it is our opinion that a farm house would be considered a qualifying asset for the purposes of the definition of a QSBCS as found in subsection 110.6(1) of the Act. ...

It is intended that the plan continue to be such that the employees will be considered to have made all the contributions so that the payment of benefits out of the plan will be non-taxable. ... Second, it is questionable whether the arrangement described above would be considered an accident or sickness insurance plan, a disability insurance plan or an income maintenance insurance plan as those terms are used in section 6 of the Act. ... If such is the case, in the event the employer were to make a contribution to the plan, the trust may be considered an employee benefit plan. ...