21 August 1990 Income Tax Severed Letter ACC9289 - Request for Advance Ruling

P. Diguer
                                        (613) 957-2123

24(1)

Attention: 19(1)

August 21, 1990

Dear Sirs:

Re: Request for Advance Ruling

We are writing in response to your recent letter (undated) which
was received in our office on August 8, 1990 and in which you
requested an advance ruling on a proposed transaction between two
corporations.  We also acknowledge the additional information
provided in various telephone conversations (     19(1)  Harris),
(     19(1)     /Diguer) concerning this matter.

Information Circular 70-6R, dated December 18, 1978, a copy of which is enclosed, sets forth guidelines and procedures for requesting advance rulings. As mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Circular, an advance ruling states how Revenue Canada will interpret specific provisions of the law in respect of definite transactions that the taxpayer is contemplating.

In addition, as outlined in paragraph 16 of the Circular, the request should contain a clear statement of the questions on which the ruling is required as well as a complete and detailed statement of the relevant facts. The ruling request should also indicate the specific provisions of the Act with respect to which the ruling is sought, the taxpayer's interpretation of those provisions and the reasons and authorities in support thereof including case law citations, commentary on tax services, references to tax essays, etc. As discussed in our earlier mentioned telephone conversations your submission does not involve definite transactions being contemplated by any specific taxpayers. In light of this, we are unable to proceed with your submission in the context of a request for an advance ruling.

The Department will, in appropriate circumstances, express opinions where requested, in respect of certain transactions as described in paragraph 22 of the earlier mentioned Circular. Such opinions, however, are not rulings and are not binding on the Department. However, the situation you describe in your above mentioned letter does not include information which is essential to determining the specific provision of the Act that may apply and as such, we are unable to provide, at this time, a meaningful reply with regards to the concerns expressed in your letter.

As mentioned earlier, your submission does not involve a request for an advance ruling and, accordingly, the $425.00 deposit which accompanied your request will be returned under separate cover.

We trust the above will be of assistance.

Yours truly,

T. Harris for Director Reorganizations and Non-Resident Division Rulings Directorate Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch