Search - considered

You asked whether certain fees charged to a trust governed by a RRSP, RESP or RRIF could be considered expenses and, if paid from a source outside the plan, deductible from income.  ... Reasonable administration fees paid by an annuitant to the trustee of a RRSP or to the carrier of a RRIF are considered to be deductible expenses in computing income from property. ... Expenses related to investments include fees for the acquisition or transfer of investments, preparation of title documents, investment counselling, commissions, brokering, or the like, Furthermore, if a RRSP annuitant reimburses the trust for such costs, the amount would be considered a contribution to a RRSP and would be included in calculating the maximum deduction permitted by subsection 146(5) of the Income Tax Act.  ...

30 May 1991 External T.I. 9013245 F- Interpretation of the Definition of "Taxable Preferred Share" Unedited CRA Tags 248(1) taxable preferred share 5-901324 Dear Sirs: Re:  Interpretation of the Definition of "Taxable Preferred Share" in Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") This is in reply to your letter dated June 13, 1990, whereby you requested our opinion concerning our interpretation of paragraph (b) of the definition of "taxable preferred share" in subsection 248(1) of the Act, in a situation which you described as follows: 24(1) You requested our opinion as to whether a 24(1) could be considered to be a "taxable preferred share" by virtue of clauses (b)(i)(A) or (C) of the definition of that expression in subsection 248(1), and whether the phrase "it may reasonably be considered having regard to all the circumstances" in that definition provides any latitude in the applicability of the dividend entitlement clauses under consideration. ... Subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of "taxable preferred share" provides that a determination must be made of whether "it may reasonably be considered, having regard to all the circumstances" that the amount of the dividend that may be declared or paid on a share is fixed, limited to a maximum or established to be not less than a minimum with a preferential dividend entitlement. ...

You requested our views as to whether the property would be considered qualified farm property in the following hypothetical situations: Situation # 1 1.      ... Consequently, the subsection 45(1) deemed disposition would not in and by itself preclude the property from being considered qualified farm property at any subsequent time.  ... Situation # 2 Where a taxpayer sells property and then reacquires it so that section 79 of the Act applies he would for purposes of paragraph (vii) of the definition of qualified farm property in subsection 110.6(1) be considered to have acquired the property on the date of reacquisition.  ...

In your letter, you questioned why we considered that the provisions of subsection 55(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") could apply to an issue of special shares by an Opco to a Holdco in the manner described in our letter under reference.  ... Any dividend that would effect a significant reduction in the portion of a capital gain that, but for the dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any share of the capital stock of either Opco or Holdco immediately before the dividend and that could reasonably be considered to be attributable to anything other than "...income earned or realized by any corporation... ... Also, depending on the circumstances, the provisions of subsection 245(2) of the Act could be considered. ...

If the EBP becomes an SDA, the grandfather treatment applies in respect of a taxpayer to the extent that the deferred amounts relate, or may reasonably be considered to relate, to services rendered by the taxpayer before July, 1986. Also excluded from the rules governing SDAs are amounts under plans or arrangements to the extent that deferred amounts relate, or may reasonably be considered to relate, to services rendered after June, 1986 where both of the following conditions are met:-      the employee is legally obligated to defer payments of these amounts to the employee pursuant to an agreement in writing made with his employee or former employee before February 26, 1986; and-      the employee cannot, at anytime after June 1986, cancel or otherwise avoid that obligation. ... All contributions made under the EBP after the establishment of the Statutory Arrangement and all property that can reasonably be considered to derive from those contributions are deemed to be property held in connection with the Statutory Arrangement and not in connection with the existing arrangement. ...

They state that as a result the amount would be deductible pursuant to paragraph 18(l)(a). 24(1) Our opnion We have recently considered the issue on which you have requested our opinion in relation to another takeover bid involving two major corporations.  We have attached a copy of our memorandum to Vancouver District Office on the matter dated October 11, 1990, a copy of the relevant legal opinion from the Department of Justice dated October 3, 1990, and our request for the legal opinion dated June 19, 1990 We concluded that  24(1) prepared as a result of a takeover bid could not be considered to be for the purposes of gaining, or producing income and thus would not be deductible under paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act.  ... Although not discussed in the attached material, we note that it is our opinion that the expenditures would also not be considered to be eligible capital expenditures since, as mentioned, they were not incurred to gain or produce income If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact David Palamar or the undersigned. ...

It is a saving provision which ensures that one corporation which otherwise controls another corporation will not be considered to control where the Minister is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Its application extends to provisions such as the definition of a "Private Corporation" at paragraph 89(1)(f), the inadequate consideration rules at subsections 69(6) and (7) and other law where de facto control tests are not considered appropriate. The wording in those specific areas refer to "control" or "controlled", therefore in order to properly match or align the wording among these various provisions and subsection 256(6) it was considered necessary to include the phrase "controlled or controlled directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" in the preamble to subsection 256(6). ...

An amount is considered to be payable if there is an absolute and unconditional legal obligation to pay the amount even though payment may not be due until a later date.  ... The phrase "in respect of the year" was considered in MNR  v. ... The taxpayers, in both instances, were attempting to deduce interest in one year that related to prior years and in both cases the court disallowed that portion of the interest paid in the year that was payable in respect of prior years. 24(1) (a) CCA is considered to be relevant in determining whether an activity has a reasonable expectation of profit, according to the response given to question 35 of the 1987 Revenue Canada Round Table; and (b)     in accordance with subsection 9(3), income from property does not include any capital gain from the disposition of that property 24(1) ChiefLeasing and Financing SectionFinancial Industries DivisionRulings Directorate ...

Spice (613) 957-8953 24(1) Attention: 19(1) December 10, 1991 Dear 19(1)Re: Venture Capital Corporations We are writing in reply to your letter of July 15, 1991, in which you ask whether venture capital corporations are considered to be small business investments for purposes of subsection 207.1(5) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... For this purpose, an annuitant of an RRSP and the RRSP itself are considered to be related persons, (b) is or is related to member of a partnership that controls the corporation in any manner, (c) is or is related to a beneficiary under a trust that controls the corporation in any manner, (d) is or is related to an employee of the corporation where the employees control the corporation, except where the corporation is controlled by one person or a related group of persons, or (e) does not deal at arm's length with the corporation. Due to the detail and complexity of the Regulations regarding these issues, the foregoing comments are meant only to provide an overview of the relevant provisions and under no circumstances are they to be considered to be either comprehensive or all inclusive. ...

The comments below pertain to the following fact scenario: There exists a discretionary trust where under the trust indenture it specifies that a capital gain earned in the trust is to be considered income for trust purposes. ... A capital beneficiary (who is not also an income beneficiary) will not be able to share in the accumulating income of the trust since no part of the accumulating income will be considered capital for trust purposes. 2. ... Under a scenario where the indenture agreement of a discretionary trust does not specify that a capital gain earned by the trust is income and permits the trustees to encroach on capital for the benefit of the capital beneficiaries, then a capital gain earned by the trust will be considered capital for trust purposes. ...