Search - considered

Principal Issues: Are (1) reflexologists (2) Registered Massage Therapist (RMT) who perform therapy, reflexology, and aromatherapy (3) Certified Natural Health Practitioners (4) Aromatherapists considered medical practioners for the purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act? ... You specifically asked whether (1) Reflexologists, (2) Registered Massage Therapists (RMTs) who perform reflexology and aromatherapy, (3) Certified Natural Health Practitioners who perform (i) massage therapy, (ii) reflexology (iii) raindrop therapy and (iv) reiki and (4) Aromatherapists are considered by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (the "CCRA") to be medical practitioners for the purpose of subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... The reference in paragraph 4 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R2 to a therapeutist, or therapist, is a general reference to a number of different health professionals, to whom payments may be considered to be amounts paid to a medical practitioner for medical services. ...

As a result, a reference specifically to an individual in a particular provision of a tax convention cannot be considered as a reference to a trust. ... The above position is different from the interpretation set out in document number 912246 dated September 27, 1991 and should be considered to override such earlier interpretation. ... Other Comment Even if a trust were considered an individual for the purposes of an income tax convention, the tie-breaker rule applicable to individuals would be of no use in clarifying the residence of a trust for the purposes of the convention because terms like "permanent home", "center of vital interest" and "habitual abode" used therein have meaning only in reference to natural persons. ...

Principal Issues: Whether Canco will be considered to have incurred SR&ED expenditures by providing services described in paragraph (d) of subsection 248(1) of the Act to a non-resident corporation ("Foreignco"), in support of activities carried on outside Canada by Foreignco that would otherwise be described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection 248(1) of the Act. ... XXXXXXXXXX 2002-012272 Frank Fontaine, FCCA March 25, 2002 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Scientific Research and Experimental Development ("SR&ED") Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") This is in reply to your letter dated February 8, 2002 concerning whether a Canadian corporation ("Canco") will be considered to have incurred SR&ED expenditures, where Canco provides services described under paragraph (d) of the definition of SR&ED in subsection 248(1) of the Act to a non-resident corporation ("Foreignco"), in support of primary research activities carried on outside Canada by Foreignco that would otherwise be described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of the definition. ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are providing the following general comments: By virtue of the words in paragraph (d) of the definition of SR&ED in subsection 248(1) of the Act which read "....where the work is commensurate with the needs, and directly in support, of work described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) that is undertaken in Canada by or on behalf of the taxpayer", the particular activities of Canco would not be considered as SR&ED. ...

The term "tuition" is generally considered to refer to instruction. ... Generally, eligible tuition fees are described in paragraph 26 of the Interpretation Bulletin IT-516R2 and relate primarily to the process of instruction whereas the fees described in paragraph 27 of IT-516R2 relate to some other goods or services provided by the educational institution and are not considered eligible tuition fees. In our view, where the fees relate only to a placement fee charged in order to allow the student to receive employment during a semester while gaining experience in a particular field, the fee is not to be considered tuition, however, where the fee pertains to instruction and is a requirement of an academic program, the fee would be eligible to be included in the tuition fee. ...

Position: No Reasons: An early redemption charge incurred by a RRIF in respect of the redemption of its investments is considered a cost related to the disposition of its property. ... Where an annuitant has requested a transfer of property from one RRIF carrier to another RRIF carrier and the first RRIF carrier has to redeem investments resulting in early redemption charges before transferring the property, you ask whether the annuitant can pay the early redemption charges through a reduction of the minimum amount withheld by the first RRIF carrier or by a direct payment of the early redemption charges In our view, an early redemption charge incurred by a RRIF in respect of the early redemption of an investment is considered a cost related to the disposition of the particular property. This cost is considered an expense of the RRIF and, as such, the cost can not be paid by the annuitant under the RRIF. ...

You have asked us if the cheque would be considered near cash and, thus, taxable. ... Cash or near-cash gifts and awards are not covered by this new policy, and the value of such gifts and awards would therefore be considered taxable employment benefits notwithstanding the cost to the employer. ... Therefore, the award would be considered near-cash and would be taxable. ...

Principal Issues: Whether subsidization of temporary child care services by an employer results in a taxable benefit to the employees Position: Yes Reasons: Consistent with prior opinions XXXXXXXXXX 2002-015505 Wayne Antle September 6, 2002 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Subsidization of Child Care Expenses This is further to your letter of July 29, 2002, concerning whether the subsidization of temporary child care expenses by an employer would be considered a taxable employment benefit. ... It is our view that, where an employer reimburses an employee for the cost of a personal expense incurred by the employee, or where such an expense is paid directly by their employer, then the employee will normally be considered to have received a taxable employment benefit. ... In our view, employees who participate in the employer's temporary child care program described above would be considered to have received a taxable employment benefit equal to the amount subsidized by the employer. ...

In our view, the cost of a Rick Shaw is only eligible for the medical expense tax credit if it can be considered a "wheelchair" for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... " Based on these definitions, it is our view that the Rick Shaw, when equipped with its two front wheels, may be considered a wheelchair. On the other hand, without its front wheels, a Rick Shaw is simply a bike trailer and, in this capacity, would not be considered a wheelchair. ...

As noted in Information Circular IC 70-6R5, an advance income tax ruling will only be considered when it is in respect of a specific proposed transaction, and submitted in the manner set out in this circular. ... It is our view that, where an employer reimburses an employee for the cost of a personal expense incurred by the employee, or where such an expense is paid directly by their employer, then the employee will normally be considered to have received a taxable employment benefit. ... Accordingly, the reimbursement of these fees would be considered a taxable employment benefit, and would be required to be included on the employee's T4 slip. ...

Principal Issues: Whether interest with respect to a settlement or an award of salary, wages and other remuneration owing to a taxpayer by his former employer is considered pre-judgement interest which may be non-taxable. ... Reasons: Only pre-judgement interest that relates to an award for personal injury or death is considered non-taxable. ... You inquire whether the interest is "pre-judgement interest" that may be considered non-taxable. ...