Income Tax Severed Letters - 2023-07-12

Ruling

2022 Ruling 2021-0886471R3 - Split Up Butterfly

Unedited CRA Tags
55(2), 55(3)(b), 55(3.1)

Principal Issues: Whether the proposed transactions qualify for the butterfly exemption found in paragraph 55(3)(b).

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Wording of the Act and previous positions.

2021 Ruling 2020-0865991R3 - Code 3 - 212(1)(b)(ii) and Linked Notes

Unedited CRA Tags
212(1)(b), 212(3), 80(1), 214(6), 115(1)
a variable return at note maturity linked to a non-resident company’s stock was not participating debt interest

Principal Issues: (1) Whether 212(1)(b)(ii) applies to payments of periodic interest on the Notes? (2) Whether 212(1)(b)(ii) applies to payments at Maturity on the Notes?

Position: (1) No. (2) No.

Reasons: Payments of interest and on Maturity are made to non-resident noteholders who deal arm's length with the issuer. Neither the payments of interest, nor payments on Maturity constitute "participating debt interest" under 212(3) because, consistent with the policy of the provision, the payments are not tied to the profitability of the issuer. In other words, the payments do not represent a disguised payment of profits out of Canada.

Technical Interpretation - External

13 June 2023 External T.I. 2021-0891701E5 - Property used principally in a farming business

Unedited CRA Tags
110.6(1), 110.6(1.3), 110.6(2), 110.6(2.2)
principal use test applied on a property-by-property basis notwithstanding Otteson

Principal Issues: Can the “used principally” requirement in sub-clause 110.6(1.3)(a)(ii)(A)(II) be met is a situation where an individual owns a 70 acre parcel of land of which 25 acres is workable farmland and 45 acres is forest.

Position: Depends on the facts of the particular situation. Where in a particular year, more than 50% of a particular property is being used for some purpose other than farming or fishing or is otherwise vacant or idle, generally speaking, such “non-farming use” would result in the entire property not being considered as being used principally in the business of farming in Canada for the year. However, if the unusable portion is not suitable for any use then it may be excluded from the “used principally” determination.

Reasons: Previous positions.

12 June 2023 External T.I. 2018-0750361E5 F - Transfert d’un terrain

CRA mandate is to interpret the ITA and not provide tax-planning advice

Principales Questions: On nous demande de quelle façon minimiser les conséquences fiscales découlant d’un transfert de terrain dans une situation particulière. / We are asked how to minimize the tax consequences in a given situation.

Position Adoptée: Aucune / None.

Raisons: En dehors du mandat de la DDI / Outsite the ITRD’s mandate.

18 May 2023 External T.I. 2023-0970521E5 - METC- Fees paid for a private health plan

Unedited CRA Tags
ITA: Section 118.2, subsections 118.2(2), 118.4(2); paragraphs 118.2(2)(a), (o), and (q), and 118.2(3)(b).

Principal Issues: Whether the fees paid for a private health plan qualify as an eligible medical expense for the purposes of the METC.

Position: It is a question of fact whether the fees would qualify as an eligible medical expense under subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act. Where an amount paid to a medical clinic can reasonably be considered a prepayment of services that are to be provided over the course of the year and the services are actually provided in that year the fees (block fees) will generally be an eligible medical expense It is also a question of fact whether a particular arrangement may satisfy the definition of a PHSP for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(q) of the Act. Where the plan is not considered to be a PHSP within the meaning of subsection 248(1) of the Act, the fees are not an eligible medical expense for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(q) of the Act.

Reasons: Payments made for the availability of medical services or certain lab and diagnostic procedures and services would not qualify as an eligible medical expense under subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (Act). However, a block fee is an eligible medical expense for the purpose of the METC where it is paid for eligible medical expenses as described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. Where the plan is considered to be a PHSP within the meaning of subsection 248(1) of the Act, the fees for a private health plan may be an eligible medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(q) of the Act.

14 June 2022 External T.I. 2022-0932391E5 - Mineral Resource Certification - Lithium Deposit

Unedited CRA Tags
Definition of "mineral resource" in subsection 248(1)

Principal Issues: Does the spodumene (lithium) deposit qualify as a "mineral resource" pursuant to subparagraph (d) of the definition of that term in subsection 248(1)?

Position: Yes.

Reasons: Based on an opinion from Natural Resources Canada.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

18 January 2023 Internal T.I. 2022-0940131I7 - U.S. Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

Unedited CRA Tags
56(1)(d); Canada-U.S. Tax Convention

Principal Issues: (1) Whether Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits received by a taxpayer resident in Canada from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs are taxable under the Act. (2) Whether such DIC benefits are exempt from taxation in Canada under the Canada-U.S.

Position: (1) Yes. (2) No.

Reasons: (1) The DIC benefits are annuity payments and are included in income under paragraph 56(1)(d). (2) Paragraph 1 of Article XXII of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention gives Canada the right to tax the DIC benefits regardless of their tax treatment in the U.S.