Search - كليشات مرتبطين

Accordingly, it was proposed that Aco Amalco would purchase the Xco shares of Eco Amalco (which would be problematic under s. 55(3.1)(c) if this occurred as part of the same series of transactions as the Sequential Butterflies) and that Xco would redeem the shares of Dco Amalco, including through the application of share subscription proceeds received from the holding company for the son of A (which would be problematic under s. 55(3.1)(d), as expanded by s. 55(3.2)(e), if part of the same series) – so that Xco would now mostly be owned by the two A-family companies. ...

Situation (b) The same as Situation (a) except that a holding company (HC), resident in a non-treaty country, was interposed for non-tax reasons between Foreign MNC and FE – but with the funding for the acquisition of the Canco shares still having come from Foreign MNC, and with any dividends paid flowing up to Foreign MNC. ...

A variant of this situation was the same except that a holding company (HC), resident in a non-treaty country, was interposed for non-tax reasons between Foreign MNC and FE – but with the funding for the acquisition of the Canco shares still having come from Foreign MNC. ...

However, on the death of Daughter2, ½ of the Fund property had been distributed in accordance with the Fund terms to her issue. ...

CRA indicated that since Canco and Holdco each held the USco shares directly for a portion of their 2023 taxation year, each would be a reporting entity that was required to file a T1134 for their 2023 taxation year – however, as a related group with the same year end, and using the same functional currency, they could designate one of them as their representative to file a single T1134 information return with the required information for both. ...

X's daughter purchased the shares from a person with whom she was dealing at arm's length … the ACB of those shares should not be reduced by paragraph 84.1(2)(a.1), for the purposes of section 84.1. ...

. …. If, in the case described, there in fact is an allocation of capital gains of the SEC to its partners, we believe it would be difficult to maintain that they do not retain their character in the hands of the latter, including the Limited Partner.... ...

After noting that the definition of qualified carbon capture expenditure – A(b)(i) in s. 127.44(1) refers to “the amount of energy expected to be produced for use in a qualified CCUS project over the project's total CCUS project review period”, CRA stated: [I]t is our view that there is no restriction on counting energy delivered through an electrical utility grid in determining “the amount of energy expected to be produced for use in a qualified CCUS project”. ...

…[T]he CRA should not accept the adjustment request … as it would result in changes to the tax assessment for Year 1, which is a statute-barred year. ...

. … [G]eographic coherence [also] is required under the Treaty. ...