22 August 2007 External T.I. 2007-0224941E5 - Variance order of Structured Settlement

By services, 23 November, 2017
Bundle date
Official title
Variance order of Structured Settlement
Language
English
CRA tags
12.2 56(1)(d)
Document number
Citation name
2007-0224941E5
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
485123
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "2007-08-22 08:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state
Workflow changed
Main text

Principal Issues: Does a court ordered variance of a structured settlement affect the taxation?

Position: No.

Reasons: Award is the same, only the participation has been changed and had it been done originally, it would have been tax exempt.

									2007-022494
XXXXXXXXXX 								C. Tremblay, CMA
(613) 957-2139
August 22, 2007

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

Re: Structured Settlement Varied by a Court Order

This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 2007 wherein you requested a technical interpretation in respect of payments being made under a structured settlement arrangement.

You provided us with the example of a structured settlement award payable to a young child that is varied by a court a few years later to provide that the monthly payments are for the benefit of the mother and the child. The reason for the variance is that the mother has to provide extensive care for the child and, as a result, is unable to hold a job and earn income. There is no change in the monthly amount payable under the structured settlement, merely a change in the identity of the persons allowed to benefit from that payment.

Our Comments:

Written confirmation of the tax implications inherent in particular transactions is given by this Directorate only where the transactions are proposed and are the subject matter of an advance income tax ruling request submitted in the manner set out in Information Circular 70-6R5, Advanced Income Tax Rulings, dated May 17, 2002. Where the particular transactions are completed, the inquiry should be addressed to the relevant tax services office. The following comments are, therefore, of a general nature only and are not binding on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

In the above example, the monthly payments remain unchanged and it appears that the caregiver mother should have been an additional payee in the original tax-free structured settlement. In such a situation, in our view, the fact that the payees are varied by a court order to include such a caregiver parent should not, in and of itself, affect the tax-free receipt of payments under the structured settlement. However, as previously noted, we would only be able to conclusively resolve this matter in the context of an advance income tax ruling.

We trust that our comments will be of assistance.

Yours truly,

R.A. Albert, CA
For Director
Financial Sector and Exempt Entities Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate
Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch