Search - ”资源化利用" resources

DERP2 then distributed its resource properties to DEML as a return of capital, thereby increasing the COGPE balance of DEML and reducing the ACB of DEML’s partnership interest by the FMV of the rights (higher than the value a year earlier) – but with these items effectively being approximately reversed at the partnership year end as a result of DERP2’s proceeds of the distribution of the PNG rights being allocated to its partners. After then seeding DERP2 with a small resource property that was of interest to a third-party purchaser, DEML sold its partnership interest to that purchaser, thereby realizing a capital loss, which it then carried back to offset a capital gain it had previously realized. ... That is even more so when those losses are based on non-capital CRP [Canadian resource property], that will also be deducted through CCOGPE pools at a 100% inclusion rate thus creating a double deduction. ...

During 201 and for some time before and after 2011, he worked on a variety of resource projects (described as “high risk and high speculation”) (para. 13), for example, seeking to exploit a novel graphene production process, unsuccessfully bidding on an oil sands property and then a kerogen property, developing a new technique to liberate nickel from ore, and a down hole water separation project. ... In finding that the taxpayer had a business, Masse DJ stated (at paras 34, 35, 40): [I]t is not uncommon for high risk and speculative ventures such as prospecting, mining, resource extraction and indeed many other entrepreneurial activities, not to show any profit for many years. … Stewart confirms … that the non-existence of income is not determinative of whether a taxpayer’s activities constitute a source of income. … He certainly could demonstrate better business practices and I note that his record keeping leaves much to be desired but I still conclude that he conducted his activities with a level of commerciality sufficient to constitute a business. ...

(para. 226) After adopting the statement in Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v ShawCor Ltd., 2 014 ABCA 289 that "'a party preparing an affidavit of records must, short of revealing information that is privileged, provide a sufficient description of each record for which privilege is claimed to assist other parties in assessing the validity of the claimed privilege,'" Rossiter CJ ordered (at para. 243): that CIBC provide the author and/or sender, the recipient, the date of creation, subject line and describe the record in a way without revealing information that is privileged for all non-email documents listed in Schedule B. See summaries under s. 232(1) – solicitor-client privilege and Tax Court Rule 82(2). ...

" the taxpayer to whom reference is made in s. 1204(1)(b), rather than referring to "... the oil and gas business, the production of it... ... Accordingly, general and administrative expenses relating not to wells which generated revenues, but to activities intended to result in the acquisition of new wells, did not reduce the resource profits under s. 1204(1). ...

The Queen, 2015 TCC 191 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Regulation 3100 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 3100 notes were prescribed benefit where no intention to demand payment Lyons J found (at para. 42) that the taxpayers were not required by Blue Hill, the promoter of a tax shelter investment in mineral claims, to pay the promissory notes issued by them in consideration for Blue Hill incurring Canadian resource expenditures on their behalf. ... See summary under s. 237.1(1) – tax shelter. ...

Applying the presumption against tautology, Parliament thus intended a corporate party to be able to be represented by either counsel or some third party individual who was not a lawyer. … … [M]eaning must be given to the clear subsection 17.1(1) Parliamentary language that a party, a term encompassing both corporate and non-corporate parties, may appear in person in a general procedure appeal. ... Additionally, …the “outside accountant” potentially … would be an important if not key witness at any hearing of this appeal. … For these two reasons I will dismiss the corporate Appellant’s application per Rule 30(2)…. The Rules do not seem to provide for an application for individuals who are appellants in general procedure appeals to be represented by anyone other than either counsel or themselves. … ...

CRA took the position that the production activity referenced in Reg. 1204(1)(b) “ceased at the wellhead” – and it reassessed to the taxpayer (a participant in the joint venture) to reduce the amount of the taxpayer’s production profits by the expenses of the OLS (effectively treating them as equalling the income from transporting the crude, and then deducting the same amounts as an expense applicable to the transportation profits). CRA in particular relied on the exclusion in Reg. 1204(3)(a) for “income … derived from transporting … petroleum”. ... The OLS had no impact one way or the other on the amount of income realized by the joint venture owners from the sale of the Hibernia crude and did not in and of itself generate any income or loss for the joint venture owners. … …[P]aragraph 1204(3)(a) was intended to ensure that additional income derived from transporting/transmitting crude does not attract the resource allowance. ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 288, rev'd 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Paragraph 96(1)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1)- Paragraph 96(1)(f) LP profits can be allocated to purchasing partner at year end Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership (HLP) was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of HLP paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company (Nuinsco) with substantial resource pools. ... Nor was there an abuse of the partnership income allocation provisions of ss. 103 and 96 – it was totally conventional that close to 100% of the income of the LP was allocated to the corporation (Nuinsco) which was the limited partner at the partnership (HLP) year end. In this regard, he stated (at paras. 99, 109): In this case, the allocation scheme in the HLP partnership agreement had not changed since the creation of the partnership. … There is no indication that this scheme was chosen for tax purposes or that it was unreasonable. … [N]othing in the partnership regime prevents a partnership agreement from basing its allocation of income on the membership at its fiscal year-end. … ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 288, rev'd 2018 FCA 166-- summary under Subsection 245(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 245- Subsection 245(2) GAAR reassessment must reflect the abuse Income account treatment of the profits realized by a condo-project limited partnership (HLP) was avoided through the corporate partners (the Partnercos) of HLP paying safe income dividends (out of the realized but unallocated condo profits) to their respective Holdco shareholders, followed by a sale by the Holdcos of the Partnercos to a public company (Nuinsco) with substantial resource pools. ... Nor was there an abuse of the partnership income allocation provisions of ss. 103 and 96 – it was totally conventional that close to 100% of the income of the LP was allocated to the corporation (Nuinsco) which was the limited partner at the partnership (HLP) year end. ... The income reallocated to Partnerco through GAAR did not change from ignoring the deemed year end. … ...

The Queen, 2016 TCC 175-- summary under Section 67 Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 67 bonuses received by a spouse handling back office functions were disproportionate to her contribution A husband-wife team owned and managed a construction firm doing work in the general Vancouver area with the husband managing the business development and construction work and the wife handling the administrative and human resources work. ... In finding that her bonuses were taxable to the taxpayer, Woods J found (at paras 57-58): [T]here was no evidence…that the bonuses were…intended…to reasonably compensate the Appellant for her duties of employment. … [T]he Appellant received remuneration through her bi-weekly pay that was roughly equivalent to Mike’s remuneration, except for 2008 when the Appellant’s regular pay exceeded Mike’s. ...