| March 15, 1990 | |
| Ms C. Gouin-Toussaint | Provincial and Interprovincial |
| Director | Relations Division |
| Rulings Directorate | J. Wilson |
| 957-2063 | |
| HBW 1231-2 | |
| HBW 1231-6-3 |
24(1)
We are writing in reply to your memorandum dated January 16, 1990, (copy attached), in which you supplied us with a copy of the above Ruling and 21(1)(b) while we appreciate the concern that you have raised, we are having some difficulty in understanding the relevance, for purposes of the ruling, of 24(1)
The issue sheet attached to the ruling indicates that this was one of the main issues. 24(1)
In our opinion, Regulation 402(4)(d) only requires 24(1) to have an office in the "particular province" and that the to "permanent establishment" in this provision relates to the Company's (i.e. Canadian resident's) permanent establishment. Accordingly, the fact that the proposed offices met the definition of permanent establishment under Regulation 400(2) had no relevance in meeting the Company's objective (under the Advanced Tax Ruling) of avoiding double taxation by qualifying for the abatement.
Any comments you may have on the above would be appreciated as we appear to be missing the point with respect to the issue.
C. SavageA/DirectorProvincial and International Relations Division
JW/sgFile copySequence fileAuthor's copyReading fileAccess to Info(2)