Search - considered

Will the general partners be considered limited partners as defined in paragraph 96(2.4)(b) of the Act by virtue of the limited recourse financing being considered a benefit to the partners under paragraph 96(2.2)(d) of the Act?  ... Consequently, a general partner of such a partnership will not be considered to be a limited partner by virtue of paragraph 96(2.4)(b) of the Act.  ...

Generally, as indicated in paragraph 30 of IT-270R, the territorial source of income from an office or employment is considered to be the place where the related duties are normally performed.  ... Rather, paragraph 3 of Article XXIV sets forth certain rules to be utilized in determining in which Contracting State income will be considered to arise for purposes of that Article. Where a person considers that the actions of one or both of the Contracting States result or will result for him in taxation not in accordance with the Convention, the person may apply to the competent authority pursuant to Article XXVI of the Convention which provides a mechanism whereby such actions can be considered by the Contracting States with a view to avoiding by agreement of the Contracting States taxation which is not in accordance with the Convention. ...

You will note that the conclusion drawn in that instance was that subsection 70(1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") was considered to apply to the subsequent payment and the amount was technically required to be reported on the final return of the deceased employee. ... We note that the wording in subsection 70(1) does not contain the requirement that for the provision to apply the amounts must be considered accrued at the time of the employee's death.  ... The equalization payment is not considered to be a payment in recognition of his service in employment paid as a consequence of the cessation of employment caused by the employee death but rather as salary or wages earned in the course of employment. ...

Under subsection 256(5.1) of the Act, Holdco may be considered to be "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" by Mr. ... It is the Department's view that persons will be considered as having collectively acquired control of a corporation where there is evidence that they have a common link or interest or they act together to control the corporation.  ... The comments expressed are not advance income tax rulings and are not considered binding on the Department in respect of any taxpayers, in accordance with paragraph 24 of Information Circular 70-6R dated December 18, 1978. ...

Where, for instance, there is an appointment of an irrevocable beneficiary in either of a policy insurance or an annuity policy under which the beneficiary obtains the unassailable right to ownership of the capital element of the policy such property would normally be considered to vest indefeasibly. ... However, where the Department is satisfied that a property is held in trust solely to carry out the terms of a will under which the ultimate and absolute ownership of that property is bequeathed to a particular individual and the trust arrangement is such that the individual's ownership rights whatsoever to an immediate or future benefit from that property or that rust, the property will be considered to vest indefeasibly in that individual. ... Although the beneficiary is considered by you to be an irrevocable beneficiary it would appear that, (1) changes can be made to the contract to allow partial withdrawals, and(2) the right is given to surrender the contract providing consent is given by the irrevocable beneficiary.  ...

Assuming that an expenditure is capital in nature, a determination must be made whether the refurbished equipment can be considered new property in that property that has been used before it was acquired by the taxpayer can not be included in class 34 (unless the property had been included in class 34 by the person from whom it was acquired). Property considered to be new will not, for purposes of paragraph (i) of class 34, be considered to have been used before it was acquired by the taxpayer. ...

You have requested confirmation: (1)     that the benefits received from an employee-pay-all plan would be tax free to the recipient, (2)     that a plan would be considered an employee-pay-all plan if the employer increased the employee's earnings by the amount of the premium and then deducted the premium from the amount paid to the employee and (3)     that the plan would also be considered to be an employee-pay-all plan if the employer treated the premium as a taxable benefit. ... the plan is set up as an employee-pay-all plan at the time the premium is paid, a plan such as that described in (2) above will be considered an employee-pay-all plan and any benefits received therefrom will not be included in the employee's income.  ...

Assuming the taxpayer carries on a business, paragraph 2 of the Interpretation Bulletin IT-290 lays out the criteria to be considered for determining principal business status.  The criteria to be considered are as follows: (a)  the profits realized by each one of a corporation's businesses; (b)  the volume and the value of the gross sales or transactions of each business; (c)  the value of the assets of each business; (d)  the capital employed in each business; and (e)  the time, attention and efforts expended by the employees, agents or officers of the corporation in each business. Although none of the above criteria may be sufficient in or by themselves, they should be considered in determining whether a taxpayer's rental or leasing business is its principal business. ...

Where there is strong evidence that the taxpayer continues to have the right of repossession of the containers after shipment to the customers (i.e. the containers remain the property of the supplier at all times), all such containers whether on hand or with customers would normally be considered depreciable property.  On the other hand, where the customers have the ability to use the containers for whatever purpose, destroy or return them at will without consulting the supplier (e.g. returnable beer bottles), the supplier is considered to have sold the containers when they are shipped to the customer and to hold those containers on hand as inventory because they are held for sale.  ... Where the returnable containers are accounted for as inventory, all containers in transit or in the hands of customers are treated as having been sold as the vendor is no longer considered to have title to the containers.  ...

The minimum return of capital has been considered as interest income to a partner even though there is no offsetting deduction available to a partnership. However, in our opinion, subject to the possible application of section 103 of the Act and reasonableness test on the rate of interest, a minimum return on capital can be considered as a distribution of income to the extent that it does not exceed the income of the partnership for the particular fiscal year. If both partners contributed capital to the partnership, a minimum return on capital available to one partner while not the other might be considered offensive and section 103 of the Act might apply. ...