3 October 1989 Income Tax Severed Letter AC74314 - Review of Revision of IT-138R

By services, 22 July, 2022
Official title
Review of Revision of IT-138R
Language
English
Document number
Citation name
AC74314
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
657172
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1989-10-03 08:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Main text
Mr. R. Shultis                       J.D. Brooks
         Director                              957-2097
         Publications Division
                                              7-4314

SUBJECT: Review of Revision of IT-138R This is in reply to your memorandum of August 28, ,1989 in which you requested our comments regarding your draft of interpretation Bulletin 138R2. Our comments follow the order of the paragraphs in the bulletin rather than being in order of significance.

Page l

1.       Line 20 (Application) - 27-183 was dated October 28,
         1974 and not October 22.

Page 2

2.       Line 1 (paragraph 2) - For clarity, we suggest replacing
         the word "deal" with "transact."
3.       Line 34 (paragraph 5) - Reference is made to income
         retaining its "nature and character" whereas on lines 41
         and 42 of page I of this bulletin and in paragraph 1 of
         IT-l38R reference is made to "source and nature." is
         this change in wording intentional?

Page 3

4.       Line 38 (paragraph 8) - To clarify the circumstances
         under which the dividend will result in a lower capital
         gain on disposition of a partner's partnership interest,
         we recommend adding at the end of the sentence the words
         "to the extent the dividend has not been paid out to the
         partner."
5.       Line 40 (paragraph 8) - We recommend adding, after
         "capital dividend account," the words "by virtue of
         subparagraph 89(1)(b)(ii) of the Act."
6.       Lines 44 and 46  -    reference to "Kay 25" should read
         as "Kay 24" and the reference to subparagraph
         "89(1)(b)(iv)" should read as "89(1)(b)(v)."

Page 4

7.       Line 8 (paragraph 9) - It may add clarity to add the
         words "by them" folloving the uords "businesses carried on."
8.       Line 43 (paragraph 13) - Since the "portion" becomes the
         respective gain or loss, ve suggest replacing the words
         "to be taken into account in computing" vith "which viii
         be."

Page 5

9.

                            21(1)(b)
lO.      Line l7 (paragraph l3) - it may be clearer to use the
         words "divided by" in place of "over."

Page 7

Il.      Line lO (paragraph 21) - We suggest adding the word
         "non-depreciable" at the end of the line.  Although the
         words you have used in this sentence track the language
         employed in subsection 80(1) of the Act, the additional
         descriptor clarifies the effect of the prescribed       
         regulation.

Page 8

12.      Lines 10 to l3 (paragraph 25) - In paragraph 101(d) of
         the Act, the restriction is that the deductible amount
         cannot exceed 4/3 of the taxpayer's taxable capital gain
         from the disposition.  Therefore, we recommend replacing
         lines 10 to 13 with the following:
              ".... partner, to the extent that the amount does
              not exceed 4/3 of the taxpayer's share of the
              taxable capital gain on the disposition of the
              farmland.  For taxation years and fiscal
              periods ..."
13.      Line 17 (paragraph 26) - The words "... taxation years
         and ..." should be inserted immediately before "fiscal
         periods."
14.      Line 21 (paragraph 26)  - The reference to (paragraph)
         "24 above" should be "25 above."
I5.      Lines 19 and 20 (paragraph 26) - it may be clearer to a
         reader if the substitution of the fractions read.as "2/3
         in place of 3/4, and 3/2 in place of 4/3."
16.      Line 25 (paragraph 26) - The word "fractions" should be
         replaced with "rules" since this provision does not
         apply to all corporations.

17.

                         21(1)(b)
18.      Lines l to8 (paragraph 29) - The sentence which
         describes the restriction is difficult to read and
         therefore we suggest replacing lines I to 8 uith the
         following:
              "... periods ending after December 15, 1987. 
              However, where a taxpayer acquired his partnership
              interest before December 16, 1987, or after
              December 15, 1987 pursuant to an obligation in
              writing entered into before December 16, 1987, this
              restriction will not apply in respect to
              expenditures made before December 16, 1987 or
              expenditures made after December IS, 1987 and      
              before 1989 pursuant to an obligation in writing
              entered into by the partnership before December 16,
              1987.  For complete details, refer to the
              application provisions in the Act."

Page 10

19.      Line 12 (paragraph 32) - Following the words "where the
         member," we recommend the insertion of the words "or a
         person who does not deal at arm's length with the
         member."
20.      Lines 17 and 22 (paragraph 32) - Since the purpose of
         subsection 96(2.4) is to determine whether a particular
         member is a limited partner, we suggest replacing the
         words "a limited partner" with "a member." Also note
         that this will be consistent with the use of "member" in
         the first sentence of the paragraph.  Similarly, in line
         18 we suggest replacing the word "taxpayer" with
         "member."

Page 11

21.      Line 6 (paragraph 33) - The word "met" should be "meet"
         to be consistent with the tense of the other verbs in
         the sentence.  
22.      Line 28 (paragraph 35) - it would be more precise to
         refer to "deemed cost" rather than "cost."
23.      Line 44 (paragraph 37) - The reference to the at-risk
         amount should be to the at-risk amount less the
         reductions referred to in the preceding sentence.
         Therefore we suggest using "reduced at-risk amount" in
         place of "at-risk amount" in line 44, with the
         parenthetical description `(the "reduced at-risk
         amount")' added to the end of the sentence on line 42.

Page 12

24.      Lines 5 and 6 (paragraph 38) - Since the business is
         supposed to be actively carried on, we recommend
         replacing the words "which carried on a business or
         rented or leased" with "which actively carried on a
         business or which rented or leased."
25.      Line 7 (paragraph 38) - The word "continues" should be
         "has continued." Also, the word "changes" should be
         narrowed to "increases in its capital or indebtedness."
26.      Various references in the bulletin to specific partners
         (e.g. "the" partner) and partnerships could be
         generalized (e.g. "a" partner).  For instance, it is
         stated in line 37 of page 1 that "the general rule is
         that partnership..." and this should refer to "a
         partnership."
27.      The various references in the bulletin to resource
         "expenditures" should be reworded as resource "expenses"
         in order to be consistent with the language used in the
         Act.  The following occurrences of `such have been
         identified:
               Page 1, line 28 (Summary).
               Page 7, line 26 (paragraph 23).
               Page Il, lines 44 and 47 (paragraph 37).

We hope these comments will be useful to you.

Director Business and General Division Specialty Rulings Directorate Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs Branch