Search - ”资源化利用" resources

On May 29, 2006, each Holdco sold its shares of its Partnerco to an arm’s length public corporation (“Nuinsco”) with substantial resource pools (and Nuinsco acquired the shares of the general partner for $1.) ... In finding that s. 160 did not apply to the transactions, Rossiter CJ stated (at paras. 136-138, 147): The purchase by Nuinsco of the common shares and the preference shares issued in the Second Stock Dividend is, in my view, an indirect transfer of property from Partnerco to the Appellant, when considered in conjunction with the steps leading to and including the Nuinsco Loan. … HLP loaned an amount in question to Nuinsco that would have been otherwise able to be distributed to Partnerco and its fellow partners. As a result, the Partnercos indirectly transferred property to Nuinsco and then on to the Appellant and the other Holdcos. … The question is therefore whether Partnerco transferred this property for less than FMV. … The Appellant has shown that at the end of this series of transactions, Partnerco was left none the poorer. ...

Contrary to the Minister's focus on available information as of 31 December 2009, "instead, the taxpayer may rely on information that comes into existence after the end of the year, but before the filing-due date, to fulfill his … obligation to report…" (para. 69). After noting (at para. 81) that "the decision in Flexi-Coil indicates that a debt is a bad debt when the taxpayer determines that the debt is uncollectible and, in making this determination, has acted reasonably and in a pragmatic, business-like manner, applying the proper factors," Owen J stated (at para. 85) that "the information available to the Appellant as at April 30, 2010 indicated that as of December 31, 2009 SA had no resources to pay its debts other than what it might collect from EMB under the receivership … [and] it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Appellant to conclude that only a portion of the principal owed was likely to be recovered and that the Interest was illusory and would not be recovered." Respecting the Minister's claim that "the Appellant should have recorded the Interest as income and then claimed the deduction" (para. 89), Owen J noted (at para. 89) that the Minister "was not able to identify exactly how the deduction … is claimed on the return," that "although the letter did not make specific reference to paragraph 20(1)(l) or 20(1)(p), it did state that the Interest was not … collectible … [representing] the essential characteristic of a bad debt" (para. 90) and "in any event … it is well established that it is open to a taxpayer to amend his return through the appeal process [citing Imperial Oil, 2003 FCA 289, at para. 10]" (para. 91). ...

On May 29, 2006, each Holdco sold its shares of its Partnerco to an arm’s length public corporation (“Nuinsco”) with substantial resource pools (and Nuinsco acquired the shares of the general partner for $1.) ... To put it another way, I am unconvinced that subsection 111(5) applies to profit trading with a loss corporation acquirer such that it can even be said that the parties relied on subsection 111(5) in transacting as they did. … [T]here is no indication in subsection 111(5) that it was meant to prevent the acquiring party from using its own losses against post-acquisition income allocable to that acquiring corporation indirectly due to its acquisition of the target corporation. … In finding that there also was no abuse of the provisions of the Act for allocation of partnership income (ss. 103 and 96), he stated (at paras. 99, 101, 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. … It was open to the Respondent to argue that the combination of paragraph 96(1.01)(a) and section 103 demonstrate a general policy against profit trading between new and former members; having failed to do so, it is not for me to expand the lis of the parties. … [N]othing in the partnership regime prevents a partnership agreement from basing its allocation of income on the membership at its fiscal year-end. … He acknowledged that the transactions entailed an indirect transfer of property from the LP to the Holdcos from a s. 160 perspective, but did not consider that there had been any receipt of property on other than FMV terms. ...

Alta Energy Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v The Queen, 2018 TCC 152, aff'd 2020 FCA 43, aff'd 2021 SCC 49-- summary under Article 13 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 13 a large exploration property in which only six wells had been drilled qualified as immovable property used in the business A U.S. corporation (“Alta Resources USA”), which was a leader in the development of shale oil and gas assets in the U.S., and a Blackstone-affiliated partnership with approximately equal ownership by U.S. ... This provision would have deemed the shares of Alta Canada to be immovable property (thereby permitting the gain from their disposition to be subject to Canadian capital gains tax) on the basis that they derived their value principally from immovable property situated in Canada, subject to an exclusion which deemed the underlying licences not to be immovable property if they were property of Alta Canada “in which the business of the company … was carried on.” ...

The taxpayer, who was the sole director and President, performed human resources, back office and administrative functions at an office on the reserve, whereas her husband planned, scheduled and placed rebar, and worked with their 50 employees on the construction sites. ... Further, I find that it is abusive of the exemption for the Appellant to receive bonuses which exceed reasonable remuneration. … [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. ...

The Queen, 2020 TCC 128-- summary under Paragraph 12(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 12- Subsection 12(1)- Paragraph 12(1)(b) shares received on a deferred basis from a successor of a client were fee income in the year of entitlement to receive The taxpayer (Lockwood), which was in the business of brokering the financing of junior resource corporations and other reporting issuers, helped broker a farm-in agreement in 2010 between its client Lion Energy Corp. ... Had it been received, “the payment of the 833,333 LEO shares would have been a payment to Lockwood for services rendered [and] hence … business income” (para. 64). ...