Information and Disclaimer
This interpretation letter was issued based on the specific circumstances or situation of a taxpayer or vendor and the law and tax policy in effect at the time the ruling was issued. Specific facts relevant to your situation may change the application of the tax. In accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, all confidential and identifying information has been removed from this interpretation letter. Please be aware that any statute or policy referred to in this letter may have been superseded. Where a letter contains links to a publication, the link is to our current publication on that subject, regardless of the date that the ruling was originally issued, and the current publication may not be reflective of the information originally provided. In no event shall the Government of Ontario be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, the use of the information contained herein.
Interpretation Letter 08-0039, April 2008
We refer to your letter regarding Company A and Company C in relation to the association rules under the Employer Health Tax (EHT) Act. We have received letters of authorization from both taxpayers.
Subsection 1(5.1) of the EHT Act states that for the purposes of determining if employers are associated, section 256 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) applies for EHT.
Subsection 256(1) provides basic rules for making a determination as to whether corporations are considered associated. Corporations are considered, among other reasons, to be associated if:
The essential test in determining association under section 256 is whether or not control is present. Control can be either de facto or de jure. De facto control essentially refers to control in fact or by conduct. De jure is control by legal right, which generally rests with a majority of the votes in the election of the Board of Directors.
From the information you provided, I understand that:
Based on the facts of this situation, although Individual A is not involved in the business operation of Company A, he is nevertheless considered to have control of the business by virtue of owning 51% of the shares. The absence of de facto control cannot negate this fact.
It is our opinion that Company A is associated with Company C and any other businesses Individual A controls.