Search - стрим ешмек шешу

Canada, 2018 FCA 74-- summary under Tax Benefit Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 245- Subsection 245(1)- Tax Benefit tax benefit to trust from tax-free dividend even though not distributed to a beneficiary In order to strip surplus of an operating corporation (“Gennium”) controlled by the Pilon family, a dividend paid by Gennium was distributed through a series of transactions to a corporation with no assets (“9163”), which then paid the amount to a Pilon family trust (“Satoma Trust” – which also had a corporate beneficiary) as a dividend on special shares that Satoma Trust held in 9163. ...

. $19M in fees paid to a French lobbyist firm, whose purpose “was to facilitate the implementation of the Pechiney transaction by heading off possible political and public relations issues which might derail the transaction, given Pechiney’s special status … in France” (para. 29), fell into the implementation cost category, and were capital expenditures. ...

He was aware of the hedging effect which the Forward Contract would have on the BNS shares …. ...

Its jurisdiction does not extend to judicial review of decisions of the Minister under discretionary relief provisions of the Act …. ...

., 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 103(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 103- Subsection 103(1) s. 103(1) likely applies to the allocation of most of the partnership profits at year end to a lossco that never had significant economic interest or risk in the partnership business Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership was avoided by the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of the partnership paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders through the payment of stock dividends of preferred shares followed by a redemption of those preferred shares – in turn, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company with substantial resource pools (Nuinsco). ...

After finding that the value-shift transactions entailed an avoidance transaction given that their professed estate-freezing purpose could have been accomplished more conventionally (utilizing a s. 85(1) or 86(1) rollover), Noël CJ went on to find that they were an abuse of the basic capital gains provisions (ss. 38(b), 39(1)(b) and 40(1)(b)), stating (at para. 56, TaxInterpretations translation): [I]t is possible for the object and spirit of provisions in issue to have a larger rationale that that which emerges on a reading based on the words (See … Triad Gestco, paragraph 51). ...

After confirming the decision of the Minister to revoke the registration of the Foundation under s. 168(1)(e) on the grounds of essentially no records substantiating the consulting fees (and in finding that the decision of the Minster to revoke under s. 168(1)(b) on the grounds that the consulting fees had not been established to satisfy the requirement for the Foundation to devote all of its resources either to charitable activities or as gifts to qualified donees, Woods JA stated (at paras. 53, 57): … The Appeals Directorate noted that most of the funds received and disbursed by the Foundation were to registered charities in which …[Mr. ...

Here, although Veracel was the larger corporation, essentially all its assets were the subscription-receipt cash proceeds – and “There was no scenario under which Veracel would have been allowed to retain the money…” (para. 53). ...

Although it was unnecessary to decide on the further ground for revocation that Many Mansions was engaging in activities inconsistent with its registered object (of “advanc[ing] and teach[ing] the religious tenets, doctrines, observances and culture associated with the Christian faith”), Laskin JA nonetheless stated (at para. 6): Many Mansions submits that judgments on matters of religious doctrine or theology have no place in government …. ...

He noted that not respecting the void character under the Civil Code of a partnership contract for carrying out an illegal activity would have the “absurd consequence” that, on the one hand, the taxpayer would be held liable for the entirely of the uncollected GST of the unlawful activity, whereas, on the other hand, “given the illegality of those activities, the taxpayer would not have any recourse … to reclaiming, from the co-debtors, their respective portion of the total debt before a civil court” (para. 37). ...