| 921290 | |
| 19(1) | R.B. Day |
| (613) 957-2136 |
June 16, 1992
Dear 19(1)
We are writing in reply to your letter of April 6, 1992, wherein you requested our opinion as to whether or not there can be two "dwellings for the individual's habitation" for purposes of both subparagraph 15(2)(a)(ii) and subsection 80.4(7) of the Income Tax Act (the Act), in the situation described in your letter.
Our Comments
Since the situation set out in your letter appears to relate to actual taxpayers and proposed transactions that would ordinarily be considered by way of an advance income tax ruling request, we are unable to respond to the specifics of this situation. However, we are prepared to make the following general comments. Whether or not an employee/shareholder receives a loan in the capacity of employee or shareholder involves a finding of fact in each particular case. From the limited information submitted with your letter, it would appear that the individuals received their loans in their respective capacities as shareholders of their respective corporations such that subsection 80.4(7) of the Act would not apply.
With respect to the application of subparagraph 15(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is our view that both a city home and a cottage could simultaneously be considered to be dwellings for the individual's habitation in the circumstances described in your letter. We would caution that the above comments represent an expression of opinion only and as such are not binding on the Department.
We trust our comments will be of assistance to you.
Yours truly,
J.A. Szeszyckifor DirectorBusiness and General DivisionRulings DirectorateLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch