Words and Phrases - "acquisition"
3 November 2023 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable Q. 2, 2023-0978631C6 F - CELIAPP - Autoconstruction d'une habitation - FHSA - Self-construction
A single individual (Mr. X) acquired a land lot in 2000, made contributions to his FHSA starting in May 2023 and on February 1, 2024, signed an agreement with a contractor to build a single-family home on his land. It was agreed that the house would be habitable by him on September 1, 2024, and his intention was to begin living in it on that date. Mr. X would like to withdraw all of his FHSA contribution on June 1, 2024.
Regarding the requirement in para. (a) of the qualifying withdrawal that Mr. X have begun, or intends not later than one year after his “acquisition” of the qualifying home, to use it as his principal place of residence, CRA stated:
[T]he CRA considers that the home is generally acquired by the individual when it becomes habitable.
Thus … Mr. X could be in a position to satisfy all the conditions set out in the definition of "qualifying withdrawal" insofar as, in particular, his qualifying home should be habitable from September 1, 2024 and he intends to begin using it as his principal place of residence on that date.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 146.6 - Subsection 146.6(1) - Qualifying Withdrawal - Paragraph (c) | written agreement for construction before October 1 could be satisfied with agreements with trades by self-constructing individual | 194 |
28 November 2001 Internal T.I. 2001-0091247 - Employer Stock Opt. & Section 116116(5)
S.49(3) did not apply to deem the exercise of employee stock options held by a non-resident former employee to not be a disposition of the options, given that s. 49(3) applied only to capital property, whereas employee stock options are governed by s. 7. However, there was no liability under s. 116(5) to the Canadian corporation that had issued the options as it should not be considered to have acquired the options from the employee and, therefore, had no cost therefor. CRA stated "this is analogous to a situation where a debtor repaid his debt and the debt ceased to exist. That is, the CRA would generally recognize the settlement or extinguishment of the debt as a disposition of property by the creditor but not an acquisition of property by the debtor".
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(1) - Disposition | 131 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 49 - Subsection 49(3) | 80 |
Côté-Létourneau v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1116 [at at 3092], 2007 TCC 91
The Court rejected a submission of the taxpayers that shares issued to them by a corporation were not acquired by them: in order for them to acquire shares, there is no need for there to be a corresponding disposition of the shares.
Stantec Inc. v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 400 (Informal Procedure), aff'd 2009 FCA 285
The appellant acquired a US public company ("Keith") in a Delaware merger (in which Keith Industries merged into the appellant's US subsidiary, with the latter as the survivor, and Keith shareholders received shares of the appellant), which required the appellant's shares to be listed on the NYSE. In finding that the appellant was entitled to input tax credits for GST on the fees incurred by it in connection with this listing, C Miller J found that ss. 186(1) and 186(2) both applied, so that the appellant was deemed to incur the fees for use in its commercial activities.
The transactions, although not a purchase of Keith's shares, was an "acquisition" of the shares, by way of "contractually having control of the disposition of those shares in the form of their cancellation" (para. 24). To hold otherwise would defeat the essence of s. 186(2), which is to deal with takeovers (para. 25).
In affirming C Miller J's finding that the listing services were "in relation to" the shares for the purpose of s. 186(2) (without commenting on the same finding made in relation to s. 186(1)), Layden-Stevenson JA stated (at paras. 16-17):
Applying the Supreme Court’s construction [of “in relation to” in Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430], he reasoned that the nexus between acquiring the listing services and the shares of either Keith or Stantec California need not be one of prominence, let alone exclusivity. He concluded that the listing services were acquired so that Stantec could complete its deal to own all the shares of the company resulting from the merger of Keith and Stantec California. ...Miller J. found, as a fact, that the services “can readily and reasonably be regarded as being in relation to the shares of either Keith Companies or Stantec California or the shares of the merged company, that is, the investment by Stantec in its new acquisition.”
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 186 - Subsection 186(1) | listing fees to issue shares to target shareholders were eligible | 263 |