credit

In response to questions as to how a Canadian corporation may recover Part XIII tax that it has withheld on a dividend cheque issued to a US resident that then is returned (or where there is uncertainty that the payee is a US resident), CRA responded that this was a question that could be specifically addressed with a more complete set of facts, and confirmed its position in IC 77-16R4, May 11, 1992 (Archived), on “credited”:

In response to questions as to how a Canadian corporation may recover Part XIII tax that it has withheld on a dividend cheque issued to a US resident that then is returned (or where there is uncertainty that the payee is a US resident), CRA responded that this was a question that could be specifically addressed with a more complete set of facts, and confirmed its position in IC 77-16R4, May 11, 1992 (

By services, 18 July, 2019

The business of the subsidiaries of Vega International included the transport of commercial vehicles from the manufacturer to customer. International provided fuel cards to its subsidiaries which drivers used to purchase fuel, with International charging the subsidiaries on a monthly basis for the cost of the fuel plus a 2% surcharge.

In finding that International was not purchasing fuel and on-supplying the fuel to its subsidiaries, and instead was supplying credit to its subsidiaries (in this reference, its Polish subsidiary), the Court stated (at paras. 36, 44, 48):

By services, 18 January, 2018

The appellant (“North Shore”) entered into contracts in 2010 with Menova Energy Inc. for the purchase of solar panels, under which it paid one-half of the purchase price plus HST up front with the balance payable on delivery. Menova eventually cancelled 10 of 18 contracts, issued credit memos that documented its obligation to refund the associated up-front payment, including HST, but did not satisfy this obligation before becoming bankrupt. North Shore ultimately only recovered a relatively small portion of what was owed. The Minister issued reassessments to North Shore Power Group Inc.

A royalty charged by a U.S. resident (the "Licensor") to a corporation resident in Canada (the "Taxpayer") was, in lieu of payment by the Taxpayer to the Licensor, used to reduce the amount of a promissory note owing by the Licensor to the Taxpayer. Would s. 212(1)(d) apply to the full amount of such reduction? Before finding that "the entire amount of the royalty payable that is applied to reduce the Note would be [considered] credited to the non-resident and, therefore, subject to…withholding tax," CRA stated:

By services, 28 November, 2015

Some of the shares held by the taxpayer in its French subsidiary were purchased for cancellation by the subsidiary in consideration for the assignment to the taxpayer of a note (denominated in French-francs) owing to the subsidiary by a French partnership whose principal partner was the U.S. parent of the taxpayer. A month later, the note was converted into indebtedness denominated in Canadian dollars.

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer received demand loans from its U.S. parent which provided for the semi-annual payment of interest but provided that the taxpayer, on giving ten days' prior written notice, could elect that interest which otherwise would become due on a semi-annual payment date would be added to the principal amount. In its books of account, the taxpayer credited 85% of the capitalized interest as an amount owing to the non-resident creditor, and 15% as an amount owing to the Receiver General. In finding that interest which had been so capitalized had not been "credited", Tremblay J. stated (p.

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer was a trustee for a family trust, which received a dividend in 2001 of over $2 million. The trust adopted an unconditional resolution on 11 September 2001 to pay a distribution of the dividend to the non-resident capital beneficiary, with the beneficiary having the right to require payment to himself at any time. The taxpayer then resigned as a trustee on 12 January 2002 and the beneficiary was paid on 18 January 2002. The trust failed to withhold and remit the 25% Part XIII tax.