Search - considered

It is a question of fact as to whether an employer’s payment is considered to be a reimbursement or an allowance. Based on the above, the payments for the use of a personal cellular phone, bus washing, and electricity consumption would be considered an allowance because the employees are not required to submit receipts to receive the payments from the employer. ... Where an employer reimburses an employee for a specific expense incurred in the performance of his or her employment duties, the reimbursement will generally not be considered a benefit under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. ...

21 November 2018 External T.I. 2018-0775971E5- XXXXXXXXXX to reduce student loan debt Unedited CRA Tags Various provisions were considered, such as 12(1)(x); 56(1)(n); 56(1)(r); 56(1)(u); and 56(2); and section 7300 of the Income Tax Regulations. ... We agree with your analysis that the XXXXXXXXXX, as you described it, cannot be reasonably considered to be income from an office, employment, business or property. Also, the XXXXXXXXXX cannot be considered to be a scholarship or bursary as these terms are used in paragraph 56(1)(n) of the Act, given that the XXXXXXXXXX is not paid to enable eligible applicants to pursue their education. ...

More specifically, you are seeking confirmation of whether the payments would be considered qualifying amounts as defined in subsection 110.2(1) of the Act. ... Based on the Decision, it appears that the XXXXXXXXXX% Market Adjustment identified in paragraph XXXXXXXXXX of the Decision could be considered a qualifying amount since it is awarded as a result of the arbitration process. The annual increases for each of the XXXXXXXXXX years identified in the same paragraph would not be considered qualifying amounts as these amounts were agreed to by both parties (as noted in paragraph XXXXXXXXXX of the Decision) and are not part of the arbitration award. ...

However, if the scope of the fundraising activities is significant, fundraising can be considered a purpose of the organization, in which case the organization may not qualify as a paragraph 149(1)(l) entity. ... Generally, fundraising, by its very nature, is considered a for-profit activity. ... However, the scope of the fundraising activities, especially by comparison with other activities, should not be so significant that fundraising can be considered a purpose of the organization, in which case the organization may not qualify as a paragraph 149(1)(l) entity. ...

Specifically, can the CRA confirm that the dividend income received by Spouse will be considered an “excluded amount” pursuant to subparagraph (e)(ii) of that definition found in subsection 120.4(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”) by virtue of the fact that paragraph (a) of the “excluded business” exception will apply because Spouse works at least 20 hours a week as a part-time receptionist for XCo? ... The more an individual is involved in the management and/or current activities of the business, the more likely it is that the individual will be considered to participate in the business on a regular, continuous and substantial basis. ... As such, the dividend income received by Spouse would be considered an “excluded amount” because the exception in subparagraph (e)(ii) of that definition in subsection 120.4(1) for an amount derived from an excluded business is met. ...

Since neither spouse works more than 4 hours in any business carried on by any of the particular corporations they own, the requirements of the bright line test in paragraph 120.4(1.1)(a) would not be met and, as such, it remains a question of fact as to whether either spouse would otherwise be considered to be actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis in the activities of each such business on the basis of the limited number of hours worked. ... As such, it is not possible to conclusively determine whether, on the basis of an evaluation of such relevant factors, each spouse could otherwise be considered as being actively engaged on a regular, continuous and substantial basis in the activities of each of the businesses carried on by their various corporations for a particular taxation year. ... In particular, in the fact situation set out in Question 3 of the 2019 STEP Conference, we indicated that a husband and wife could both be considered to be actively engaged in the activities of a particular business carried on by their corporation on a regular, continuous and substantial basis for a particular year where the particular business did not require any other workers and only required them to spend on average 5 hours each per week in that business. ...

However, if the corporation is considered to be carrying on an investment business that is a related business, if the conditions of excluded business are not satisfied with respect to that investment business then TOSI would apply unless another excluded amount exception applies. ... However, assuming the corporation is considered to be carrying on an investment business that is a related business then the excluded business exception would not apply to husband and/or wife if such individual is not considered to be actively engaged in that investment business on a regular, continuous and substantial basis either during the particular taxation year or in any five prior taxation years. ...

August 21, 2020 André Perrier HEADQUARTERS Legislation Section Income Tax Rulings Program Support and Services Division Directorate Individual Returns Directorate Chris Brennan Assessment, Benefit, and Service Branch (613) 822-6323 2019-083491 Qualified Retroactive Lump Sum Payments This is in reply to your email of December 20, 2019 requesting our view on whether certain payments received by members of the XXXXXXXXXX would be considered a Qualifying Retroactive Lump Sum Payment (QRLSP) for purposes of section 110.2 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). More specifically, you are seeking confirmation of whether the payments would be considered qualifying amounts as defined in subsection 110.2(1) of the Act. ... In our view, it appears that the salary increases and wage adjustment identified in XXXXXXXXXX of the Report could be considered a qualifying amount. ...

" Interest from guaranteed investment certificates and other interest bearing certificates, such as treasury bills and bonds, is not generally considered to be earned on a reserve.  Although the financial instrument may have purchased through a bank or trust company located on the reserve, the interest is considered to be earned and paid from the payor's principal place of business (which is often the issuer's head office).  For example in the case of a government bond, regardless of where purchased, the interest will be considered earned in and paid from Ottawa. ...

If the funding taxpayer receives, in consideration for a reasonable royalty payable to such a researcher, the exclusive rights to manufacture and distribute in Canada products made as a result of using those rights, the funding taxpayer would normally be considered to be entitled to exploit the results of the SR&ED performed.  ... In such a case, the funding taxpayer would still normally be considered to have met the "entitled to exploit" test.  ... In order to do so, the results of the SR&ED must be considered to have a direct and beneficial application in a business that is carried on by the taxpayer in the year by leading to or facilitating an extension of that existing business. ...