Regulation 105

Subsection 105(1)


FMC Technologies Co. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2008 DTC 6560, 2008 FC 871

assignment of fees by NR contractor re Canadian work performed by Cdn sub did not oust Reg. 105

The non-resident parent of the taxpayer ("FMCI") entered into a subcontract with the taxpayer for the performance of the in-Canada portion of its performance obligations of FMCI under a contract with a Canadian company ("Petro-Canada") and also assigned the portion of the contractual payments due to FMCI (representing the value of the in-Canada portion of the work provided by the taxpayer) to the taxpayer. These arrangements did not detract from the earning by FMCI of all the fees, so that Regulation 105 withholding was applicable to the full amount of the fees earned by FMCI under the contract including the portion it had assigned to the taxpayer.

Even if no Regulation 105 withholding had been applicable, the taxpayer would have had no right to recover the amounts from CRA. Instead it would have been open to FMCI to seek a return of the amounts withheld by Petro-Canada by filing Canadian income tax returns reflecting the monies received from Petro-Canada and deducting the amounts paid to the taxpayer.

See Also

Beggs v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 11 (Informal Procedure)

refusal to grant Reg. 105 waiver not an assessment/remedy in FC

Favreau J found that a refusal of CRA to issue a Reg. 105 waiver was not an “assessment” that could be objected to, or appealed to the Tax Court, and stated (at para. 27) that “the Appellants will always have the opportunity to turn themselves to the Federal Court of Canada in order to force the Minister to change its decision as stated by Justice Bowie in Kravetsky.”

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(1) refusal to grant Reg. 105 waiver not an assessment/remedy in Federal Court 244

Stora Enso Beteiligungen GmbH v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 891, 2009 TCC 282

withholding at different level/reimbursement of NR out-of-pocket expenses not subject to withholding

A German corporation ("SEPPA") engaged a Swedish consulting firm ("McKinsey") to do consulting work for a Canadian affiliate of SEPPA ("SEPH"). SEPPA paid the fee of McKinsey (which included a somewhat arbitrary mark-up of exactly 10% to cover McKinsey's expenses) without Regulation 105 withholding, and was reimbursed by SEPH. SEPH remitted 15% of the amount of its reimbursement to the federal government as Regulation 105 withholding.

Boyle, J. found that SEPPA could not be assessed (except as described below) by CRA for failure to withhold under Regulation 105 given that the Regulation 105 tax had been remitted by SEPH. Boyle, J. noted (at para. 22) that s. 153(1) of the Act is clear that the person paying for services of a non-resident is to "remit that amount to the Receiver General on account of the payee's tax for the year", and that it "would defy logic to conclude that the payee for whose credit the remitted amount is held by the CRA is an intermediary in the payment chain [i.e., SEPPA] and not the non-resident service provider [i.e. McKinsey]." Here McKinsey was the only non-resident providing any services in Canada.

As there was a withholding tax remittance on account of the services of McKinsey, this in effect was an additional payment to McKinsey that was subject to Regulation 105 withholding (together with a penalty under s. 227(8)).

Although a reimbursement of McKinsey for actual out-of-pocket expenses would not have been subject to Regulation 105 withholding, here the exact 10% addition for expenses instead represented an adjustment to a single price for an all-inclusive bundled contract.

Hamilton v. The Queen, 2007 DTC 121, 2006 TCC 603

withholding not reduced if no substantive liability

In rejecting an argument of the taxpayer (who had been assessed vicariously under s. 227.1 in respect of the failure of a corporation of which he was a director to withhold on all amounts paid to non-residents of Canada performing work for it) that a number of the non-resident payees were not liable for income tax as a substantive matter, Bowie J. stated (at p. 123):

"In effect, I am asked to assess each of these 33 individuals and determine the refunds to which they would have been entitled had they filed returns in Canada. That would be impossible in the evidentiary vacuum that exists in this case. ... The words of section 153 of the Act and section 105 of the Income Tax Regulations required the company to withhold and to remit to the Receiver General 15% of the amounts paid, unless it could be shown that some or all of the payments were salary or wages, or otherwise fell within the definition of 'remuneration' ... ."

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 65

no withholding on reimbursements for disbursements/no requirement for documentary support for allocations in NRs' invoices/travel time to Canada not re Cdn services

In 1998 the Canadian taxpayer paid $14.3 million to non-resident service providers in the ordinary course of its forestry business. The Minister assessed it for failure to withhold under Reg. 105 on the following payments:

  1. the portion of service fees allocated to services rendered outside of Canada according to estimates made by the service provider (with no supporting documentation being provided by them for such estimates);
  2. reimbursements of non-residents' out-of-pocket costs and related items, including travel time and expenses; and
  3. amounts paid as retainers in relation to services which the service provider expected to be rendered outside of Canada (again, without documentary support).

Bowie J. found (at paras. 6-10) that the purpose of the withholding obligations under s. 153(1)(g) and Reg. 105 was to ensure that, if a non-resident recipient of a payment is, after all the facts are known (i.e. when its annual Canadian tax returns are filed), liable to pay income tax in Canada, there will be funds available, in the form of the 15% withheld and remitted, to satisfy the obligation. He implicitly accepted that disbursements incurred by a non-resident service provider in providing its services might be “in respect of” those services. However, disbursements were not subject to Reg. 105 withholding since they are not “for” the non-resident's services, indicating (at para. 10) that the Reg. 105 wording may "properly be read as including only amounts that may be taxable in Canada in the hands of the recipient, which is to say 'income earned in Canada'." He stated (at para. 7):

[T]he appellant's obligation in respect of the disbursements is simply to repay that which the consultant has paid on the appellant's behalf in the course of rendering the service. To withhold 15% from that amount would not at all further the purpose of paragraph 153(1)(g)… . It is not difficult to foresee that if foreign service providers were to be reimbursed their expenses only to the extent of 85% until such time as they had filed a Canadian income tax return after the year end, and then waited for an assessment and a refund, that would create a considerable disincentive for them to offer their services to Canadian clients

As the expression “a fee, commission or other amount in respect of services rendered in Canada of any nature whatever” in Reg. 105 was capable of being narrowly interpreted so as to conform with what was authorized by ITA s. 153(1)(g), Reg. 105 was intra vires.

Respecting the lack of documentary support for the Canada/U.S. allocation estimates of the non-resident service providers, he stated (at para. 24, see also para. 27) that "there is no requirement at law that those be provided." A "retainer" was in reality a deposit so that it was "not a fee and not referable to any work" (para. 26). Finally, charges for time spent travelling to Canada for meetings were "not earned in Canada, and so [not] taxable in Canada" (para. 28).

Words and Phrases
for in respect of retainer fee
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Regulations/Statutory Delegation narrow construction of Reg. so as to be intra vires 212
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Section 16 "in respect of" in Regulation read narrowly to conform with "for" in statute 169

Ogden Palladium Services (Canada) Inc. v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 345 (TCC), briefly aff'd 2002 DTC 7378, 2002 FCA 336

ancillary services included

A corporation resident in the United States ("Marco") obtained a licence of stadium facilities from the taxpayers and contracted with them for the provision of related services (e.g., ticket sales and the sale of food, beverages and souvenirs) in connection with the production of a figure skating show in Canada by Marco. Lamarre T.C.J. referred to the finding in Taylor v. MNR, [1988] 2 CTC 2227, at 2234 (TCC) that "the term 'services' refers not to the final product or end result of a transaction, but rather to the process by which this is achieved" and found (at p. 350) that the producer (Marco), being the one who administers and supervises the making of the show that will be presented to the public, therefore is part of the process by which the show can be brought about. On this basis, and given the scope of the phrase "in respect of", the remittance to Marco by the taxpayers of the net proceeds of the show was subject to withholding under Regulation 105.

Lamarre T.C.J. also agreed with the position of the Minister that the obligation to withhold under Regulation 105 existed even if the non-resident was exempt under the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention (a claim which, in this case, was unsupported by the evidence).

Words and Phrases
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 227 - Subsection 227(8) - Paragraph 227(8)(a) due diligence defence not established in absence of evidence of professional advice 273

Administrative Policy

16 October 2020 Internal T.I. 2019-0823641I7 - Regulation 105 - requirement to withhold

no expansion of an exception from withholding for reimbursing expenses of non-resident subcontractors

Canco entered into a contract (“Initial Contract”) with a non-resident corporation (“NR”) for the supply and installation of boilers in Canada. Prior to the completion of the services, and in light of the financial difficulties of NR, Canco and NR entered into “Payment Agreements” under which Canco provided payments to NR, in respect of the contract for service in Canada, performed by the non-resident subcontractors of NR, with such funds placed into dedicated bank accounts and paid to the subcontractors upon the authorization of both NR and Canco. The Directorate stated:

[B]ased on the terms of the Payment Agreements … Canco agrees to make advanced payments to NR that are set off or deducted from the amount due by Canco to NR required under the Initial Contract. …[S]uch advanced payments are [quoting Weyerhaeuser] in respect “of remuneration for services rendered in Canada and thus potentially taxable by Canada in the non-resident’s hands”, not in the nature of a reimbursement of expenses of the subcontractor. As such, the nature of the payments is different from [those] … in … 2008-29716 … .

In particular, it is our view that the advanced payments made by Canco under the terms of the Payment Agreements are payments to NR for the services performed in Canada under the Initial Contract. As such, the recipient of the payments is NR in payment for such services and the payments are income in NR’s hands. If NR subcontracts its obligations under the Initial Contract rather than performing them directly and the amounts are ultimately paid by NR to subcontractors, that does not alter the fact that Canco is required to pay NR for services in Canada under the terms of the contracts and the Payment Agreements.

Accordingly … the advance payments made by Canco to NR under the Payment Agreements are subject to the withholding requirements of section 105 … .

Guidance on international income tax issues raised by the COVID-19 crisis, CRA Webpage 31 March 2021

Relief where COVID-19 interruption in processing waiver of Reg. 105 withholding and treaty relief was available

[W]here a Waiver Request in respect of Regulation 105 and/or Regulation 102 has been submitted to the Agency and, due to the [COVID-19] Interruption [of processing of Waivers], the Agency was unable to process the request within 30 days, the Agency will not assess a person who fails to deduct, withhold or remit any amount as required by Regulations 102 and 105, in respect of an amount paid to a non-resident person covered by the particular Waiver Request.

This relief will be available where the sole reason a non-resident person could not obtain a waiver of Regulation 102 or 105 withholdings from the Agency was due to the Interruption, and the person paying the amount can demonstrate they have taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the non-resident person was entitled to a reduction or elimination of Canadian withholding tax by virtue of an income tax treaty with Canada.

27 November 2017 External T.I. 2017-0731441E5 - Interchange Canada and Business Number

salary reimbursement payments made to seconding NR employer subject to withholding

Under the proposed Interchange Agreement with a non-resident corporation (“NRCo”) and a non-resident employee of NRCo, the employee will provide services to the Department for one year while staying at temporary accommodation in Canada, but will remain a non-resident, as well as remaining on the NRCo payroll as an NRCo employee. The Department will reimburse NRCo for the employee’s salary and benefits (with no mark-up thereof).

Before finding that the reimbursement payments will be subject to Reg. 105 withholding, CRA stated:

[A] non-resident employer that sends an employee to Canada to exercise employment duties for the employer for one year would generally be rendering services in Canada. …

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 150 - Subsection 150(1) - Paragraph 150(1)(a) a non-resident corporation is carrying on business in Canada by virtue of being the legal employer of an employee seconded to Canada 173
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 2 - Subsection 2(3) - Paragraph 2(3)(b) NR corp carrying on business in Canada by virtue of being reimbursed for payroll costs of seconded employee 138
Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 102 - Subsection 102(1) NR company seconding employee to Canada subject to Reg. 102 withholding requirement but not EI or CPP 170

30 March 2017 Internal T.I. 2016-0636721I7 - Consent fees and withholdings

non-resident dealer who attended at Canadian board meetings was rendering services in Canada

Canco entered into a “Financial Services Agreement” with a non-resident Advisor who agreed to provide assistance respecting a proposed sale of Canco or its business including analyzing the business, marketing Canco and its business, coordinating the data room and due diligence by potential purchasers, evaluating purchase proposals, and structuring and negotiating the sale.

At Canco’s request the Advisor will meet with Canco’s board of directors to discuss the proposed Sale.

Respecting the applicability of Reg. 105 withholding to fees paid to the Advisor or its affiliates, the Directorate stated:

[I]t would appear that at least some of the services, particularly meeting with the Board of Directors would be provided in Canada. As noted in paragraph 32 of Information Circular 75-6R2,

“The portions allocated to the services to be performed inside and outside Canada must be clearly expressed either within the contract or through the related information and documents. It is the responsibility of the non-resident and the payer to determine the proper value of these amounts.”

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 212 - Subsection 212(4) - Paragraph 212(4)(a) consent fee was not for “advice or direction pertaining to the operation or administration of a company” 161
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 214 - Subsection 214(15) - Paragraph 214(15)(b) whether consent fee was deemed to be interest under s. 212(15)(b) was moot 126

9 September 2015 External T.I. 2014-0563611E5 F - Call Centre - Location of the services performed

non-resident call centre not rendering services in Canada

A Canadian company outsourced some of its activities to a non-resident enterprise, so that the non-resident now operates a call centre which fields and handles calls received from the mostly-Canadian customers of the Canadian company. Is the call centre rendering services in Canada? After noting that the services were "using a telecommunication system as the means of transmission," CRA responded (TaxInterpretations translation):

In the case where such services are rendered by means of a call centre established abroad, the CRA is generally of the view that the services would not be rendered in Canada. Accordingly, no withholding at source would be made…[under] subsection 105(1)… .

12 February 2014 External T.I. 2013-0505511E5 - Cancellation fees paid to a non-resident artist

cancellation fee following Canadian rehearsal

A fee is paid to a U.S. musician for the cancellation of a scheduled Canadian performance. There may have been rehearsals in Canada. CRA stated:

Preparation, rehearsals, and training are considered normal activities of an artist or athlete ("performer")... . Where a performer receives a payment in respect of a performance to be done in Canada, notwithstanding that the payment may be in respect of the performance itself or for its preparation, rehearsals, or training, the requirement to withhold under section 105 of the Regulations still exists, unless a treaty based waiver is obtained.

18 May 2012 IFA Roundtable, 2012-0444101C6 - non-resident withholding - services

partnership can apply for Treaty-based waiver

Respecting whether CRA requires every non-resident partner of a US partnership which has been subject to Reg. 105 withholding to file a Canadian tax return to claim a refund of a share of the withholding, CRA stated:

Non-resident partners of a partnership are required to file a Canadian income tax return to calculate their tax liability and to obtain a refund. There is currently no administrative procedure whereby a refund can be issued in respect of a particular non-resident partner’s share of the Regulation 105 withholding without that partner filing a tax return. However, where a partnership can demonstrate, based on treaty protection, that the normally required withholding is in excess of the ultimate tax liability, the partnership can make an application for a treaty-based waiver of Regulation 105 withholding on behalf of the partners.

28 November 2011 November CTF Roundtable, 2011-0426591C6 - Deemed services permanent establishment

partnership subject to Reg. 105 withholding

A US partnership (USFirm) subcontracts part of its contract, to perform consulting services to an arm's length Canadian customer (Canco), to an arm's-length Canadian professional firm (CanFirm) and Reg. 105 withholding is deducted by Canco on payments made to USFirm. In response to queries as to whether CRA require every partner of USFirm that is allocated income pertaining to the activities in Canada to file a Canadian tax return to claim its share of the withholding, and whether CRA requires every partner that is a corporation to file a Canadian corporate income tax return under the "carrying on business in Canada" criteria, CRA stated:

There is currently no administrative procedure whereby a refund can be issued in respect of a particular non-resident partner's share of the Regulation 105 withholding without that partner filing a tax return. However, where a partnership can demonstrate, based on treaty protection, that the normally required withholding is in excess of the ultimate tax liability, the partnership can make an application for a treaty-based waiver of Regulation 105 withholding on behalf of the partnership.

Corporate members of a partnership must file an income tax return pursuant to paragraph clause 150(1)(a)(i)(B) if they carry on business in Canada (i.e. including through a partnership).

6 December 2011 External T.I. 2011-0405561E5 - Withholding on payment to non-resident

withholding on deposit

a Canadian town will pay a deposit to the non-resident agent for a non-resident artist who will perform in a stage production operated by the town.

In light of the broad meaning of "in respect of," the town will be required to withhold from the deposit unless it receives a written waiver from CRA. If the show is cancelled, a refund may be obtained by the non-resident artist only after the assessment of the Canadian income tax return for that year.

28 November 2010 CTF Roundtable Q. 9, 2010-0387091C6 - Late filing of T1 returns

penalty relief following breach of waiver

Suppose a US-resident taxpayer provides services in Canada for 130 days between 1 October to 28 February, does not anticipate providing further services in Canada, and obtains regulation 105 waivers for services provided in that period. Nevertheless, the taxpayer returns to Canada to provide services for 60 days between 1 July to 31 August the same year. This would trigger Art. V(9)(a) of the Canada-US Convention retroactively to impute a permanent establishment. The taxpayer would thus be late in filing a T1 in respect of income from Canada for 1 October-31 December.

CRA stated that it "may" apply relief provisions on the penalties and accumulated interest for 1 October-31 December - "Taxpayers will have to advise the CRA of their circumstances, and the CRA will review each request on the basis of the information provided."

CRA does not expect retroactive remittances for the period where the waivers were valid, but withholdings must commence starting 1 July. The taxpayer is obligated to file T1 forms and pay the resulting Canadian income tax liability from the 1 October-28 February period.

24 August 2010 External T.I. 2010-0354791E5 F - Commission d'un non-résident - 105(1) RIR

fee for services performed wholly in UK re sale of Canadian real estate not subject to withholding

A Canadian real estate agent paid a portion of its commission generated on a sale of Canadian real estate (occurring between resident Canadians) to a UK-resident broker for services of that individual (performed in the UK, without travelling to Canada) which contributed to the sale, including financial analysis and participating in conference calls. CRA stated

[A] commission paid to a non-resident of Canada is not subject to withholding tax under ITR subsection 105(1) if all of the services rendered by the non-resident are performed outside Canada.

13 July 2001 Comfort Letter No. 20010713

After noting, with respect to s. 212(13.3) that "the payor's reasonable belief, or a presumption based on the payee's address, will suffice to relieve the payor from possible liability", Finance indicated that "a similar test could be applied for purposes of an exemption from the withholding requirements of Regulation 105." The letter previously noted that "although there is no rule deeming the bank to be resident in Canada, many of the considerations that led to such a rule in the context of Part XIII tax are relevant here as well: the bank's business is carried on in Canada, and a person making a payment to the bank cannot always be presumed to know the details of the bank's situation."

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 212 - Subsection 212(13.3) 58

7 December 1999 1999-0007810 - Application of subsection 17(2)

Although directors fees are salaries and wages for tax purposes and, therefore, are subject to Article XV of the Canada-U.S. Convention rather than Article XIV, it is RC's administrative practice to permit fees paid to a non-resident director for services rendered in Canada to be withheld at the flat rate of 15% specified in Regulation 105.

7 August 1998 Discussion Paper on Proposed Changes to Revenue Canada's Guidelines for Treaty-Based Waivers of Regulation 105 Withholding (Draft)

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 5 0

22 March 1995 External T.I. 9504635 - WITHHOLDING TAX FOR NON-RESIDENT COMMUTERS (HAA 8019-1)

"If an individual comes to Canada and exercises his duties of employment for a Canadian company and the costs, whether directly or indirectly, are borne by the Canadian company, the presumption is that the Canadian company is an employer and the individual is taxed in Canada unless there are other facts which dictate the contrary ... . In such a case, the provisions of subsection 105(1) ... would not be applicable ... ."

8 July 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 5, p. 22, ¶1339)

Any GST payable on the fee paid to the non-resident is not subject to the withholding tax.

6 April 1990 T.I. (September 1990 Access Letter, ¶1441)

Where the service of a non-resident is the providing of information or advice by way of a telephone or electronic mail hotline and where the non-resident so providing such information or advice is not in Canada, the service will not be considered to be rendered in Canada. The shipping of materials from the United States and the giving of maintenance instructions via a telephone line also would be exempt on the same grounds.

1990 Answers Given by Scarborough District Office (May 1990 Access Letter, ¶1200, Q. 6)

A Canadian corporation contracts for repair services to be received from the Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. The U.S. corporation sends one of its employees, a U.S. resident, to perform the work, and the Canadian customer receives and pays an invoice from the Canadian subsidiary. The Canadian customer is not required to withhold tax on the payments made to the Canadian subsidiary. However, the Canadian subsidiary would be required to withhold 15% when paying its U.S. parent for the services performed by the non-resident employee.

12 November 1986 Press Release together with attachment entitled "Revised Administrative Policy - Non-Resident Withholding Taxes - Re: Services Rendered in Canada"

85 C.R. - Q.54

Where Regulation 105 and Article XVII of the 1980 U.S. Convention are both applicable, the payer is required to withhold 10% on the first $5,000 and 15% on the balance. However, the Canadian payer's obligation to withhold is not affected by the possibility that a nonresident payee may not be subject to tax on the amount of the payments.

81 C.R. - Q.48

RC will accept any reasonable apportionment as to the portion of a single payment that relates to services performed in Canada.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 216 - Subsection 216(4) Cdn lessee itself the agent 35

IC75-6R2 "Required Withholding from Amounts Paid to Non-Resident Persons Performing Services in Canada"


Raj Juneja, Pierre Bourgeois, "International Tax Issues That Get in the Way of Doing Business", 2019 Conference Report (Canadian Tax Foundation), 36:1 – 42

Withholding even where subcontracting by NR to Cdn subs

  • A non-resident commonly contracts to provide services to a Canadian resident, and subcontracts the performance of any services that are required to be provided from within Canada to Canadian subsidiaries. Reg. 105 would require withholding on payments to the non-resident person for the portion thereof respecting the services provided from within Canada by the Canadian subsidiaries. (p. 36: 11)

Potential double-withholding where NR subcontractors

  • Where a non-resident service provider subcontracts with other non-residents to provide services in Canada, Reg. 105 withholding could be required on payments to the first non-resident servicer provider and on the payments, in turn, by it to the non-resident subcontractors. This commonly occurs in information technology consulting arrangements. (p. 36: 11)

Allocation difficulties where bundled contracts

  • A commercial contract may provide for a bundle of goods and services – for example, a Canadian business that is operating on-premises enterprise-resource-planning software and pays a flat monthly licence fee under a contract that includes a warranty, where a service provider may be required to deploy personnel to the Canadian business to provide support services. (p. 36: 12)

Sabrina Wong, Sania Ilahi, "Tax Implications of Asset Securitizations", 2015 CTF Annual Conference Report

Potential application to Canadian debtors under cross-border securitization (p. 12:26-12:27)

[W]hen trade receivables that arise from services rendered to Canadian obligors are sold cross-border by a Canadian seller to a non­resident SPE, the Canadian obligors may be subject to regulation 105 withholding requirements when they make payments owing under the service receivables.

Elaine Marchand, Florie Pellerin-Catellier, "Foreign Service Providers in Canada and Regulation 105", 21 Canadian Current Tax, Vol. 21, No. 2, November 2010, p. 21.

Jules Lewy, "Withholding Requirements for Non-Resident Service Providers in Canada", Tax Notes International, 7 June 2004, p. 1079.

Shannon Baker, Dale Meister, "Non-Residents Rendering Services In Canada: Regulation 105 and Other Issues", International Tax Planning, 1999 Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, p. 1321.

Albert Baker, Mark Briggs, "Revenue Canada Provides Increased Guidance on Waivers from Withholding under Regulation 105", International Tax Planning, Vol. VIII, No. 4, p. 596.

Murray, "Computer Software: Canadian Cross-Border Issues", 1993 Conference Report, C. 27

Discussion (at pp. 26-27) of Revenue Canada requirements in order to give a waiver of withholding tax.

Scheuermann, "Income and Commodity Tax Aspects of Acquiring and Exploiting Technology", 1991 Conference Report, c. 45.

Bacal, Lewin, "The Taxation in Canada of Non-resident Performing Artists and Behind-the-Camera Personnel", Canadian Tax Journal, November-December 1986, p. 1287

Includes discussion of changing RC position on whether expense reimbursements are included in the services referred to in Regulation 105(1).