Search - contravene

. … [O]ur views are as follows: Participating in the CECRA with respect to commercial property held by a pension real estate corporation will not contravene the borrowing restriction in clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(C). Although participating in the CECRA by an RPP will contravene the narrower borrowing restriction in paragraph 8502(i), the CRA will exercise its discretion to not revoke the registration of an RPP for failure to comply with this condition. ...

. … [O]ur views are as follows: Participating in the CECRA with respect to commercial property held by a pension real estate corporation will not contravene the borrowing restriction in clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(C). Although participating in the CECRA by an RPP will contravene the narrower borrowing restriction in paragraph 8502(i), the CRA will exercise its discretion to not revoke the registration of an RPP for failure to comply with this condition. ...

9 January 1997 External T.I. 9640105- REIMBURSEMENT OF RRSP ADMIN FEES-- summary under Paragraph 146(2)(c.4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 146- Subsection 146(2)- Paragraph 146(2)(c.4) payment of trustee or admin fees out of plan trust assets not an advantage "Where the terms of the RRSP plan document provide that the trustee or administration fee may be recovered from the plan funds, the payment of such a fee either with plan funds or by the agent of the RRSP trust does not contravene the conditions in paragraph 146(2)(c.4).... ...

29 October 2003 External T.I. 2003-0037435 F- REMBOURSEMENT DE PAIMENTS D'UN REEE-- summary under Subsection 146.1(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 146.1- Subsection 146.1(2) subscriber can assign or pledge the right to receive repayments of payments In confirming that a subscriber of an RESP may assign the right to repayment of payments or to give it as security for a loan of money, CRA stated: Such transactions by the subscriber do not contravene the provisions of the Act so that they would not in themselves result in the revocation of the registration of the plan to the extent that there is no change of subscriber. ...

Persons-- summary under Agency Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Agency CCRA tests for accepting the presence of an agency agreement, here, re property of a nominee In the context of whether a corporation held title to property and disposed of it as agent for two other corporations as co-owners, CCRA stated: Generally …CCRA … will accept for tax purposes an agency relationship between persons provided that: the relationship between the persons concerned is legally a principal-agent relationship; this implies, among other things, that the transactions relating to the agency are legally effective and complete; the relationship is the result of a prior formal agreement and is not an ex post facto arrangement; the relationship does not contravene any legislation; the relationship is not a sham; the relationship is disclosed to and documented by the CCRA in a timely manner (generally at the time of filing the relevant tax returns); the facts of the particular situation support the existence of the principal-agent relationship between the persons concerned. ...

14 March 2002 External T.I. 2002-0119695 F- Income & Losses/Business or Property-- summary under Agency Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Agency criteria applied for determining presence of agency Before confirming that ticket sales receipts of the taxpayer may have been generated as agent for charitable organizations, so that they did not generate income to the taxpayer, CCRA stated: In general, the CCRA agrees to recognize a principal-agent relationship between persons for tax purposes provided that: the relationship between the persons concerned is legally one of principal-agent; this implies, among other things, that the transactions relating to the agency are effective and complete from a legal standpoint; this relationship arises from a prior formal agreement and does not constitute an ex post facto arrangement; this relationship does not contravene any legislation; the relationship is not a sham; the relationship is disclosed to the CCRA and the relevant documents are provided to the CCRA at the appropriate time (generally when the relevant tax returns are filed); the facts of the particular situation support the existence of the principal-agent relationship between the persons concerned. ...

CRA responded: [T]he CRA is willing to recognize an agency relationship for tax purposes to the extent that certain conditions are met, which are: 1. the relationship between the parties is legally that of principal-agent; this implies, inter alia, that the transactions relating to the agency are effective and complete in legal terms; 2. this relationship stems from a prior formal agreement and does not constitute an ex post facto arrangement; 3. this relationship does not contravene any legislation; 4. this relationship is not a sham; 5. this relationship is disclosed to the CRA and the relevant documents are forwarded to the CRA at the appropriate time; 6. the facts relating to a given situation corroborate the existence of the principal-agent relationship between the persons concerned. ...

The transfer of the shares of Mr X would be for the benefit of persons other than himself and that would contravene the requirement stipulated … above. ...

After stating that “[s]ince a corporation does not own its own shares prior to their issuance, it follows that the issuance of shares by a corporation to a trust for consideration equal to their FMV generally does not constitute a transfer of property to which subsection 75(2) could apply,” CRA went on to state: [T]o the extent that such a scenario does not contravene applicable corporate and trust law and that the Trust subscribed for shares of Opco and Newco for consideration equal to their FMV, it appears to us that the issuance of shares by Opco and Newco would not constitute a transfer of property to which subsection 75(2) would likely apply. ...

Accordingly, if it was reasonable to consider that Building 3 was acquired by Opco solely to replace Building 2, the requirements of s. 44(1) would not be satisfied because “Opco would have disposed of Building 2 (the only ‘replacement property’ relating to Building 1) before the time at which Opco disposed of Building 1 (the ‘former property’), which would contravene subsection 44(1).” ...