Search - considered

Position: It depends Reasons: Where certain conditions are met the disaster relief payment will generally be considered to have been received qua individual. ... It is the CRA's view that if the following conditions are met, the Payment would generally be considered to be received by the individual in his or her capacity as an individual and would not be subject to income tax: The individual was affected by a disaster (for criteria on disaster, please go to http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/cdd/index-eng.aspx); The Payment is philanthropic in purpose to compensate individuals for personal losses or damage they suffered during a disaster; The Payment is made within a reasonable period of time following a disaster; The Payment is voluntary, reasonable, and bona fide; The Payment is made to an individual dealing with the company at arm's length (e.g., the individual does not control the company; the individual is not related to a person who controls the company). ... Where the facts demonstrate that the individual received the Payment on the same basis as other individuals dealing at arm's length with the employer, the Payment would likely be considered to have been received in his or her capacity as an individual, assuming all other conditions above are met. ...

Where an employer pays, in full or in part, for the cost of a course for its employees, the employees would generally be considered to have received an economic benefit in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of their office or employment. ... If the employer is considered the primary beneficiary, the employee will not be considered to have received a taxable benefit, the amount is not included in the employment income of the employee, and the tuition tax credit would not be available to the employee by virtue of subparagraph 118.5(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. ...

Position: No Reasons: Facts and law XXXXXXXXXX 2013-048991 Lata Agarwal, CMA, MBA October 29, 2013 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Canadian Renewable and Conservation Expense ("CRCE") and "eligible capital property" This is in response to your correspondence of May 9, 2013, wherein you enquire as to whether certain intangible expenditures would qualify as "eligible capital property" under section 54 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") and would therefore be considered as "eligible property" under subsection 85(1.1) for purposes of the tax-deferred elections under subsections 85(1) and 97(2). ... It is your view that the Intangible Expenditures would generally be considered as intangible property and should qualify as eligible capital property. ... Consequently, the Intangible Expenditures will not be considered as eligible capital property. ...

27 March 2014 External T.I. 2013-0512921E5- Withholding tax on relicensing fee CRA Tags 212(1)(d)(i) Principal Issues: Whether a franchise relicensing fee payment is considered a "rent, royalty or similar payment" for the purposes of paragraph 212(1)(d)? ... More specifically, you asked us to confirm that such a franchise relicensing fee payment would not be considered a "rent, royalty or similar payment" for the purposes of paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act ("Act"). ... In the situation described in your letter, a review of all the relevant facts and documentation would be necessary to reach a definitive conclusion on whether the franchise relicensing fee paid by Canco would be considered to be a "rent, royalty or similar payment" for the purposes of paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Act. ...

Could the value of the old stock options that are exchanged for the new stock options be considered "the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire those rights", for purposes of 7(1)(b)? ... You specifically enquire whether the value of the old options exchanged to acquire the new options could be considered, "the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire those rights", for purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Act. ... In our view, the value of the exchanged options at the time of the exchange/disposition would not be considered part of "the amount, if any, paid by the employee to acquire the rights disposed of under the exchanged options". ...

Reasons: Section 252.1 of the Act provides that a union and its locals and branches are considered to be a single employer for the purposes of certain of the retirement savings rules. ... The rule will ensure that a plan is not considered to have more than one participating employer simply because a union and its various locals participate in the plan. ... According to this policy, each local, branch, national and international unit of a union is considered to be a part of the same entity hence all union accounts form part of the aggregate for calculating the AMWA.” ...

., documents 2012-0468271E5, 2012-0439641E5) and supported by court decisions, the general position of the CRA is that a plan will, in general, be considered to be a superannuation or pension plan where contributions have been made to the plan by or on behalf of an employer of an employee in consideration for services rendered by the employee and the contributions are used to provide the employee with an annuity or a pension on or after the employee's retirement. Accordingly, where only you have contributed to your UK PPS, any payments received from your UK PPS would not be considered superannuation or pension benefits and therefore a transfer of funds on a tax deferred basis from your UK PPS to an RRSP, under subparagraph 60(j)(i) of the Act, would not be permitted. ... Consequently, amounts received out of a UK PPS are not considered amounts received from a foreign retirement arrangement. ...

In respect of the above situation, you asked whether ForeignCo and CanadaCo would be considered "associated corporations", and whether ForeignCo would be considered a "foreign affiliate" of CanadaCo. ... Generally speaking, in the situation that you have described, and based on the definition of "foreign affiliate" in subsection 95(1) of the Income Tax Act, CanadaCo would be required to hold an equity interest in ForeignCo of at least 1% in order for ForeignCo to be considered a foreign affiliate of CanadaCo. ...

It is our general view that an employee will be considered to have received an economic benefit when the employee is reimbursed, in whole or in part, for the purchase of an asset, including a computer, of which the employee retains ownership, notwithstanding that the particular asset is used for employment-related purposes. The employee is considered to have received an economic benefit from the employer, as the employee's net purchase cost of the computer owned by the employee is less than it would otherwise have been. ... However, if ownership of the computer is transferred to the employer upon reimbursement, then it is our view that where the computer is used for employment-related purposes, with only incidental personal use by the employee, an economic benefit would not be considered to arise. ...

Position: The Treaty benefits may be available to the LLC with respect to income considered to be derived by corporate members of an LLC but not to individual members. ... Accordingly, the LLC can generally pay the reduced rate of branch tax in Article X(6) in respect of the share of branch profits that are considered to be derived by its corporate members. There is no provision in the Convention that is the equivalent of Article X(6) which would reduce the branch tax imposed on the portion of LLC’s branch profits that are considered, by virtue of Article IV(6), to be derived by individual members. ...