Search - considered

" The purpose test in (d) would be met and the legal fees would be considered to be eligible capital expenditures only where the taxpayer is carrying on a business and the legal fees could be considered as being incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from that business.  ... Therefore, based on our limited knowledge of the facts of this situation, it appears that the legal fees would not be deductible as either eligible capital expenditures or expenses of disposition  but rather would be considered 'nothings' for tax purposes. ...

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. ...

Therefore a person employed for less than six months, usually referred to as a casual employee, does not contribute to the Superannuation Plan and such service will, in our opinion, be considered a period while the person was "not a contributor". A person hired for a period of more than 6 months, usually referred to as a term employee, will have to contribute to the Superannuation Plan from one day and the total employment period will be considered a period "while a contributor". Should a person be employed for a period of 6 months (as a casual employee) and then have the contract renewed for another 6 months, the person would then contribute to the Superannuation Plan starting with the second 6 month period and that period will be considered to be a period "while a contributor" while the first 6 month period will be a period "while not a contributor". ...

We advise that while alimony payments made pursuant to a Demand under the Alberta Rules of Court signed by one spouse and consented to in the "notice of writing" by the other spouse would be considered to be a "written agreement", we are of the view that the agreement would not constitute a "written separation agreement" for the purposes of paragraph 60(b) of the Act.  ... An agreement which is lacking in this respect has been considered by the Courts not to be a valid separation agreement.  ... Concerning the deductibility of the payments pursuant to paragraph 60(c) of the Act, we are also of the view that the Demand cannot be considered to be an order of a competent tribunal and, as indicated by the taxpayer's solicitor, this position is supported in the Federal Court of Canada case William Edward Horkins vs Her Majesty The Queen 76 CTC 52.  ...

., $.01 per share) so that they are "legal for life" and can be considered as qualified investments for insurance companies, pension funds, etc.  ... Pursuant to subparagraph 6204(1)(a)(i) of the ITR, one of the conditions that must be met before a share would be considered as a prescribed share is that under the terms or conditions of the share or any agreement in respect of the share or its issue, the amount of the dividends that the corporation may declare or pay on the share must not be limited to a maximum amount or fixed at a minimum amount by way of a formula or otherwise. ... In the event that the holders of the non-voting shares would be entitled on the dissolution of the company to receive at least the amount of declared but unpaid cumulative dividends on the shares, it is our view that the "liquidation entitlement", as the term is used in subparagraph 6204(1)(a)(ii) of the ITR, would be considered fixed at a minimum amount. ...

While a guideline based on distance would be appropriate in most cases, there may be situations where other relevant factors should also be considered in making such a determination. We do not think it is appropriate to use the criteria in place for the Northern Residents Deduction to decide whether or not a taxable benefit should be assessed in respect of the reimbursement of removal expenses. 21(1)(b) While the policy objective of encouraging settlement in remote areas may be served by both the Northern Residents Deduction and the position described in the bulletin, the Task Force pointed out that there is a perceived inequity in the definition of a prescribed area in that some prescribed areas are not considered by neighbouring communities as being remote. ... You may be interested to know, that we have not had any queries on whether specific locations are considered remote other than your referral concerning the 24(1) and 24(1) closures. ...

Our Comments Whether or not a loan made by a corporation to an individual could be considered to be received by the individual in his/her capacity as an employee or as a shareholder would involve a finding of fact in each particular case.  The Department has taken the position that where a public corporation makes a loan to a shareholder in his/her capacity as an employee rather than as a shareholder, on the same terms and conditions as to other employees who are not shareholders, the loan would be considered to be a loan to an employee rather than a shareholder.  ... This is because the corporate loans merely replace existing loans or debt and cannot be considered to be used for the specific purposes set out in the Act. ...

Whether the Trust Fund would be considered as an employee benefit plan ("EBP") or retirement compensation arrangement ("RCA") as these terms are defined under subsection 248(1) of the Act. ... Alternatively, it is arguable that the surplus received by the Trust Fund from the RPP may be considered as a superannuation or pension benefit and would be included in the income of the Trust Fund under paragraph 56(1)(a) of the Act. ... Consequently, provided that the employer and the RPP deal at arm's length, and provided that the payment by the RPP cannot reasonably be considered to be made on behalf of the employer it is our view that the Trust Fund would not be an EBP or an RCA but would be a trust which is taxable under Part I of the Act. ...

Humenuk   (613) 957-2135 19(1) December 17, 1990 Dear Sirs: Re:  Section 80.4 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990, wherein you requested our views on whether voluntary payments of interest would be considered to be interest paid for the year on a loan which bears no interest or bears interest at a rate lower than the prescribed rate for purposes of paragraphs 80.4(1)(c) and 80.4(2)(e) of the Act. ... You referred to a letter written by this Department on April 3, 1981 wherein we set out four conditions which had to be met in order that a voluntary payment of interest by the employee be considered interest for the purpose of computing the taxable benefit under subsection 80.4(1) and in order that the loan be considered unmodified in the context of subsection 80.4(1.1) of the Act. ...

It is our opinion that as long as the amount is paid after the employee has left his employment, the sum of money in lieu of the month's notice will be considered a retiring allowance. 3.     As Interpretation Bulletin IT-337R2 states, a payment will be considered a retiring allowance if it is in recognition of long service or in respect of loss of an office or employment. ... These constitute the payments that will be considered as retiring allowances. 4.      ...