Search - considered

Our Comments It is a question of fact whether the policy in question is considered a life insurance policy under the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... If the policy does fall within the definition, it would not be considered to be capital property. ... On the maturity of a life insurance policy, an individual is considered to have disposed of a policy under the definition of "disposition" under subsection 148(9) of the Act. ...

Paragraph (c) of the definition of “qualified property” includes, inter alia, manufacturing or processing of goods for sale or lease in Canada and farming or fishing in Canada as being qualifying purposes; however, subsection 127(11) specifically excludes certain activities from being considered as “manufacturing or processing” for the purpose of this ITC. ... An activity that might not be considered as processing on its own because, for example, it does not bring about a physical or chemical change, could be considered processing if it forms an integral part of an overall method, system or technique that constitutes processing. ...

7 June 2016 External T.I. 2016-0648971E5- Replacement property CRA Tags 44 Principal Issues: Whether a commercial rental property (land and building) could be considered replacement property for a former property (expropriated farmland). ... Your specific concern is whether, for the purpose of paragraph 44(5)(a.1) of the Act, the corporation will be considered to have acquired replacement property for a use that is the same or similar to that of the former property. ... Since the commercial rental property (which includes land and a building) does not have the same physical characteristics of the farmland (land only), the commercial rental property would not be considered replacement property within the meaning of subsection 44(5) regardless of the fact that the use of both the farmland and the commercial rental property may be used to earn rental income. ...

XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Retirement Moves We are writing in response to your letter dated July 13, 2011, in which you requested our comments as to whether moving costs and travel expenses paid by your organization to relocate an officer to a new location on retirement could be considered non-taxable. ... As noted in paragraph 35 of IT-470R, where an employer pays for or reimburses an employee for the expenses incurred in moving an employee and the employee’s family and household effects, either because the employee has been transferred from one establishment of the employer to another or because of having accepted employment at a place other than where the former home was located, this payment or reimbursement is not considered a taxable benefit for the employee. ... Benefits provided to an employee that are principally for the benefit of the employer are generally not considered taxable to the employee, even though the employee may receive some incidental or ancillary benefit. ...

Reasons: As noted in IT-470R, "where an employer reimburses an employee for the expenses incurred by the latter in moving the employee and the employee's family and household effects either because the employee has been transferred from one establishment of the employer to another or because of having accepted employment at a place other than where the former home was located, this reimbursement is not considered as conferring a taxable benefit on the employee. ... The Canada Revenue Agency’s general views on this issue are also discussed in paragraph 35 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-470R (Consolidated), Employees’ Fringe Benefits, which states: “where an employer reimburses an employee for the expenses incurred by the latter in moving the employee and the employee's family and household effects either because the employee has been transferred from one establishment of the employer to another or because of having accepted employment at a place other than where the former home was located, this reimbursement is not considered as conferring a taxable benefit on the employee.” ... While the determination as to whether an employer’s reimbursement of an employee’s personal living expense constitutes a taxable benefit or not remains a mixed question of fact and law, based on the information you have supplied, it is our view that the employer’s reimbursement for the costs related to moving the taxpayer’s household goods to Canada would not be considered a taxable benefit under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. ...

Where the amount is considered income from a business, payer is required to issue a T4A slip. ... However, where the individuals are related, the payments received may be considered social assistance under the Act. ... Where the payments to the caregiver are considered income from a business, the payer is required to file an information return in a prescribed form (T4A slips and T4A Summary) with respect to the payment. ...

12 April 2016 External T.I. 2015-0621571E5- officer- public hospital board appointment Unedited CRA Tags 248(1): meaning of officer Principal Issues: Is a physician appointed by a public hospital board considered an officer for purposes of the Act? ... Waugh April 12, 2016 Dear XXXXXXXXXX: Re: Public hospital board appointee We are writing in response to your letter received December 4, 2015, and our conversations of January 25 and 29, 2016 (Waugh/XXXXXXXXXX), concerning whether a member of the professional staff (Professional) of a public hospital, who is appointed by the board of directors of the public hospital (Board), is considered to hold an office for the purposes of the Income Tax Act (Act) and the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP/EI Rulings Division, Field Operations Section, will respond under separate cover regarding whether the Professional is considered to hold an office under the Canada Pension Plan. ...

Reasons: The assigned school is considered the employer's place of business, not the administration office of the school board. ... Travelling between the employee's home and place of employment is considered to be personal travel and the expenses relating to such travel are not deductible in computing income from an office or employment. ... Where a substitute teacher is hired by a school board to teach at any one of the schools under its jurisdiction, the employer's place of business is considered to be the particular school at which the substitute teacher has been assigned to teach on any particular day. ...

In this regard, any location at or from which the employee regularly reports for work or performs the duties of employment is considered a regular place of employment. However, where an employer requires an employee to proceed directly from home to a point of call other than the employer's place of business to which the employee reports regularly or to return home from such a point, these particular trips are not considered to be of a personal nature. As well, where an employee is required to travel directly from one work location to another work location, such travel is considered to be employment-related travel. ...

You note that, to date, the payments have been minimal and that the corporation has taken no income deduction for any payments made to investors as those payments have been considered a return of capital; further, those payments have been reduced from investor balances which are shown as long-term debt on the balance sheet. ... Generally, to determine the nature of a payment to an investor, the intent of the parties as well as the specific agreements relating to the investment will need to be considered. ... Where amounts are paid to investors based on sales that the corporation makes, in our view, the payments to the investors would appear to be similar to a royalty, or to a payment based on production or use, which is considered income under paragraph 12(1)(g) of the Income Tax Act. ...