Search - considered

Principal Issues: Is a portion of an admission fee paid to attend a XXXXXXXXXX considered a charitable gift for the purposes of sections 110.1 and 118.1? ... March 2, 1999 HEADQUARTERS HEADQUARTERS Charities Division Financial Industries Division Attention: Carl Juneau Michael Cooke Assistant Director (613) 957-3498 990328 XXXXXXXXXX This is in reply to your memorandum dated February 4, 1999 wherein you requested our views as to whether a portion of an admission fee paid by a person to attend a XXXXXXXXXX is considered to be a charitable gift for the purposes of sections 110.1 and 118.1 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"). ... As noted above, where a person pays an amount to a registered charity for goods and services whether a portion of the amount paid will be considered as a gift (the "gift portion") to the registered charity is a question of fact. ...

Specifically, you want to know if the amounts you describe as a "Monthly Deduction" which are funded by withdrawals from a policyholder's deposits to their investment account under a universal life policy XXXXXXXXXX may reasonably be considered as "premiums payable by the taxpayer under a life insurance policy in respect of the year" as required by paragraph 20(1)(e.2)(i) of the Act. ... It is our understanding based on a discussion with you (Trotier/XXXXXXXXXX), that payments made by a policyholder in a particular year, notwithstanding that such payments are in excess of specified minimum amounts necessary to cover the risk and administrative charges for the year, are treated by the insurer as a premium under the policy for that particular year and no portion of such premium is considered to represent a prepaid premium. ... The fact that mortality and administrative charges in subsequent years may be funded by way of the Monthly Deductions from the build-up in the policy's accumulating fund is in our view not relevant to the determination of which particular year the premium is considered to be in respect of. ...

Your first question is whether or not the shares of Farmco could be considered to be “replacement property” to the corporate taxpayer for the purposes of subsection 44(1) of the Act. In our view, the purchase of the shares of Farmco by the corporate taxpayer will not result in the shares being considered “replacement property” for the purposes of section 44(1) of the Act. ... As indicated in paragraph 22 of IT-259R3, since properties distributed to a parent by a subsidiary in a winding-up are deemed by paragraph 88(1)(a) of the Act to have been disposed of by the subsidiary and thus considered to have been acquired by the parent, a property acquired upon winding-up may serve as a replacement property for purposes of subsection 44(5) in respect of the disposition of a former property by the parent corporation (if all of the requirements of the relevant subsection are satisfied). ...

The bulletin states that a new location probably would not be considered a replacement property for an old location if the business operations at the two locations are carried on simultaneously, other than for a brief transitional period. ... For example, the Income Tax Rulings and Interpretations Directorate has previously given a general interpretation that the purchase of a 3,000-acre farm would likely not be considered a replacement property for a 200-acre farm. then there are no other aspects to consider, such a vast change in size gives the impression that the acquisition was more than a replacement. ... However, I would emphasize that, in order to make a definitive determination in an actual case, all other factors would have to be considered in order to determine if the replacement property rules are applicable. ...

Reasons: Attendant care benefits would be considered special damages and thus would be non-taxable. ... These amounsts will be considered either employment or business income, depending on the nature of the relationship between the individual and the insurance company. xxxxxxxxxx J. ... In either case, the amounts are paid in return for attendant care service and will be considered either employment or business income, depending on the nature of the relationship between the individual and the insurance company. ...

Pre-purchase appraisal fees and inspection fees are not referred to in paragraph 62(3)(f) of the Act, and therefore are not considered eligible moving expenses. Pre-purchase appraisal fees and inspection fees in respect of the purchase of the new home are considered expenses incurred to acquire a personal asset and therefore reimbursement by the employer to an employee of such fees would be considered a taxable benefit to be included in income under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. ...

Principal Issues: Can fishing business be considered the same a that of providing guide services. ... Tevlin Attention: XXXXXXXXXX September 8, 1999 Dear Sirs: Re: Replacement Property We are writing in response to your letter dated January 14, 1999 wherein you requested our confirmation that, for purposes of subsection 14(7) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"), a guide licence can be considered a replacement property for a fishing licence when the incorporated fishing business is sold and a new guiding business is started with the purchase of the guide license from proceeds of the sale of the fishing licence. ... It states that the term is "interpreted in a reasonably broad manner" and that two businesses will be considered to be ''similar" if they both fall within, amongst others, the category of "fishing". ...

Principal Issues: 1) Can an individual who owned a home jointly with his wife participate in the Home Buyers' Program 2) What is the maximum withdrawal out of an RRSP for the Home Buyers' Program Position: 1) Question of Fact- If the individual is considered to be a first-time home buyer, then he/she will be eligible for participation in the Home Buyers' Program 2) Maximum amount of $20,000 XXXXXXXXXX 991715 M. ... For participation in 1999 an individual would not be considered a first-time home buyer if, at any time during the period beginning January 1, 1995 and ending 31 days before any HBP withdrawal in 1999, the individual or the individual's spouse had an owner-occupied home. An individual will be considered to have an owner-occupied home where the individual owns (jointly or otherwise) a housing unit and the housing unit is inhabited by the individual as the individual's principal place of residence at that time. ...

Our Comments It is our opinion, particularly in view of facts 1 and 2 enumerated above, that the employee cannot be considered to have "retired" from his employment on XXXXXXXXXX. ... Consequently, the $XXXXXXXXXX paid directly to the employee's RRSP on or about XXXXXXXXXX cannot be considered to have been received by the employee "on or after retirement" as required by the definition of "retiring allowance" contained in subsection 248(1) of the Act. ... Therefore, the $XXXXXXXXXX and $XXXXXXXXXX 08 referred to in facts 4 and 5 enumerated above should not be considered as salary continuance. ...

Where an individual, who is both a shareholder and an employee, receives a benefit under a PHSP and equivalent benefits are not available to all the employees, the individual is generally considered to be in receipt of a taxable shareholder benefit under subsection 15(1) of the Act. ... On the other hand, when equivalent coverage under a PHSP services plan is extended to all employees, including the employees who are shareholders, the benefit provided to the employee-shareholders from such coverage is normally considered to be an employment benefit rather than a shareholder benefit. Similarly, when all employees of a corporation are shareholders and it is reasonable to conclude, based on the particular facts of the situation, that the PHSP coverage has been provided as part of a reasonable remuneration package, the benefit from such coverage is also considered to be an employment benefit rather than a shareholder benefit. ...