Search - considered

Accordingly, draft s. 132(6) would effectively exempt an ILP from being considered to be a qualifying taxpayer if (as discussed further below) it did not (as per s. 217.1(1)(b)(ii)) have a qualifying establishment in Canada. ... (b), it could be considered that there is no circumstance in which an ILP, which has a Canadian-resident general partner (with personnel or agents exercising its functions qua general partner using a Canadian office of the general partner), will be deemed by s. 132(6) to not be resident in Canada. On this view, essentially all the activities of the ILP would be considered to be carried on through its general partner, so that essentially all the activities of the ILP would be considered to be carried on through the Canadian office of the general partner (viewed as a permanent establishment of the ILP), with the result that draft s. 132(6) could not apply to deem the ILP to be a non-resident of Canada. ...

For example, charitable givings or tax or regulatory filings by a mutual fund trust would not by themselves be an activity of investing funds, but would generally be considered to be part and parcel of its undertaking of investing. ... There is a concern that an activity that is thereby deemed to be a business could consequently be considered to represent an undertaking that was separate from a (more passive) investment undertaking. ... Directors of subsidiaries Although CRA has not stated that a unit trust through its trustees will be considered to be engaged in the non-qualifying undertaking of a corporate subsidiary where its trustees are identical to the directors of that subsidiary, it has required in the context of various rulings that a majority of the directors of the subsidiary not be trustees of the trust (see e.g., Income Tax Technical News No. 34 and 2013-0492731R3). ...

S. 212.3(19) provides that the exceptions in ss. 212.3(16) and 212.3(18)(b) and (d) to the application of s. 212.3(2) do not apply to a CRIC's acquisition of shares of a subject corporation if the shares may not be reasonably considered to fully participate in the profits of the subject corporation and any appreciation in its value. ... Accordingly, if the subsidiary wholly-owned corporation exception is satisfied, the CRIC would be considered to have a fully participating interest in any preferred shares of the subject corporation that the CRIC acquires. ... In this light, it presumably is intended that shares can be considered to be fully participating in the profits of a subject corporation and appreciations in its value even if the current policy of the subject corporation is to not pay dividends and there are no asset sales resulting in the current receipt of the shareholders of appreciation in the subject corporation's assets. ...

This requirement will be considered to be satisfied where one or more provincial statutes require that certain services be performed by a member of the body to which the dues in question are paid (Montgomery). ...

As discussed above, if the non-resident purchaser is considered to have purchased the CRIC because of such previous investments of the CRIC, such purchase may be considered to be part of the same series of transactions as the investments by the CRIC under the Copthorne test. ... Avoidance of control/reverse takeovers A non-resident corporation will be considered to control a CRIC even if that corporation is merely a device for pooling the investment funds of unrelated non-resident investors, such as private equity funds. ... However, this result potentially may not obtain if it might be considered that the share attributes of Parent's shares' of the CRIC do not give it the right to elect a majority of the CRIC board. ...

GST506 "Election and Revocation of an Election Between Agent and Principal" A registrant billing agent acting as an agent for a supplier in charging and collecting the amount due for a supply is considered to be acting as an agent in making the supply but only for the purposes of this election. ...

White- although the wording of s. 132.11(8) itself may imply that the legislative drafter considered that a return designation is included in the universe of transactions and events. ... If it contemplated, at the time of making the designation, that it would use some of the proceeds of such sale to fund a normal course issuer bid, it might be considered that such use of the proceeds was part of the same series of transactions that included the sale transaction. ...