Search - considered

It is our view, however, that where an asset such as cash, temporarily surplus to the needs of a business, is invested in short-term income producing investments those investment may be considered to be used in the business.  Where on the other hand substantial amounts of cash and deposits which are obviously in excess of that required for use in the business are retained in the corporation on a permanent basis, they would not be considered to be funds used in the business.  Rather such funds would be considered as permanently set aside for investment or non-qualified uses (i.e. uses other than in active business).  ...

Harding XXXX This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1985, concerning the treatment of income received from the United States by an individual who is considered to be a resident of both Canada and the United Kingdom but for treaty purposes is deemed to be a resident of the United Kingdom. ... However, we will reply to your question on the assumption that the individual is considered a resident of the United Kingdom. ... Paragraph 3 of the commentary on Article 21 of the OECD model states "...when income arises in a third State and the recipient of this income is considered as a resident by both Contracting States under their domestic law, the application of Article 4 will result in the recipient being treated as a resident of one Contracting State only and being liable to comprehensive taxation ("full tax liability") in that State only. ...

Canadian residency is a question of fact based on the particular circumstances of each individual case: It is not open to an individual to elect to be considered a Canadian resident at his discretion. ... You do not say, in your letter, whether you have sold or rented your home in Canada so we are unable to say conclusively whether you could be considered resident in Canada or-not. ... On the other hand, if the teacher is not considered to be resident of Canada, Australian.tax is payable. ...

It may be considered that the paid-up capital is calculated in accordance with an algebraic formula, in which case, section 257 applies and the result of this calculation cannot be negative. If, on the other hand, the calculation is not considered to be made according to an algebraic formula, we are of the opinion that the rule in Canterra Energy Limited v. ... " It is our view that, if the calculation is not considered to be made in accordance with an algebraic formula, the words "... shall be deducted... ...

On the assumption that there has been no capital cost allowance claimed and that the principal reason for the acquisition of the cottage property was not for the purpose of gaining or producing income therefrom the rental of the property for the winter season will not be considered to have caused a change in use and the cottage property may be designated as the principal residence of the taxpayer. ... If, on the other hand, capital cost allowance was claimed in 1973 or sub- sequently or, if the property was acquired for renting during the winter months the temporary use of the property by the owner during the summer months for personal usage should not be considered a change in use of the rental property. ... The change in use should be considered to have occurred in the year in which capital cost allowance was first claimed. ...

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. ...

Subsequent to the conference it was noted that our spoken response could be viewed as being in conflict with the contents of paragraph 28 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-293R, which indicates that: "Where the terms of a government loan include a forgiveness feature contingent upon the happening of an event that is considered remote at the time the loan is negotiated, the provisions of subsection 13(7.1) and paragraph 53(2)(k) with respect to "forgivable loans" are not considered applicable. ... Although the possibility of forgiveness existed, the possibility was considered remote at the time the loan was granted since the forgiveness would only arise to the extent the selling price of the property was insufficient to cover the first mortgage, the investor's capital, and all or part of the ARP second mortgage. ...

Director's fees and employee stock option benefits are normally considered income from an office or employment. ... If the directors do not come to Canada at all, it is unlikely that they should be considered employed in Canada. ... The effect, if any, of any relevant tax treaty should also be considered. ...

Thus, in such cases, the payment of reasonable membership fees by an employer are not considered to be a taxable benefit to the employee. ... Thus the employer would generally be considered to be the primary beneficiary of such policies and the employee should not be considered to be in receipt of a taxable benefit. ...

You seek clarification as to whether the trees removed from the farm land should be considered real property for purposes of the definition of qualified farm property set out in subsection 110.6(1) of the Act. ... Our Comments Generally, where there is a contract for the sale of standing timber without any disposition of an interest in the land itself, it is our view, that the trees are considered to be personal property rather than real property. ... Thus, where a farmer enters into an agreement with a party which permits him to cut and remove the trees from the land, it is our view, that these trees would be considered personal property and accordingly the sale thereof would not be viewed as a disposition of real property used in carrying on a farming business in Canada. ...