Search - 三河市 市委书记 现任

. … … Mr. X and Opco are an affiliated group of eligible entities and they can jointly elect under paragraph 125.7(4)(b) to permit Opco to use the consolidated revenues of the group to determine its own revenue decline test. … Mr. ... Must consider qualifying revenue of all affiliated eligible entities (p. 4) [T]he affiliation election must take into consideration all affiliated eligible entities; an applicant cannot pick and choose which affiliated parties to consolidate with. …. ...

Brian Kearl, Carl Deeprose, "Leaving Canada's New High Tax Rate Regime: Considerations, Tips and Traps", 2016 Conference Report (Canadian Tax Foundation),32:1-24-- summary under Paragraph 128.1(1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 128.1- Subsection 128.1(1)- Paragraph 128.1(1)(d) General effect of the s. 128.1(1)(d)(iii) limitation (p. 32:13) [T]he emigrating individual may elect to expand the application of the deemed disposition provisions … to … Canadian real estate, Canadian resource property, Canadian timber resource property and certain property used to carry on a business in Canada.... This... is generally used to realize latent losses that may offset departure tax gains. … Effectively, any losses realized on the deemed disposition of this property may be claimed and offset only against departure tax gains. ...

As a result, an M & A transaction may cause multiple year-ends for a target that is a CCPC. ... The closing of the sale of the target's shares takes place on December 1, 2015. … [T]he target will have a fiscal year-end on August 31, 2015. ... Consequently, an election under subsection 89(11) will not have any impact on the target's ability to claim the manufacturing and processing profits deduction under paragraph 125.1(1)(a) or the enhanced ITC for SR & ED. ...

[F.n.420 – Lloyd F. Raphael, Canadian Income Taxation of Trusts, 3d ed. ... [F.n.421 – (1933), 1 DTC 243 (PC).] … The Privy Council concluded that on a true construction of the will there were three distinct trusts, which should be assessed and taxed separately. ... " [F.n. 424 … Supra note 420, at 270.] This statement was noted by the CRA in a technical interpretation…. ...

This was clearly intended by the Department of Finance …. The CRA also takes this position. ... … [T]he first approach…is most consistent with the reference to “fair market value” in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “majority-interest beneficiary.” ... [fn. 87 … 2009-0348901E5 and 2010-0352921E5.] ...

On the basis of the limited guidance that has been provided thus far by the OECD and the CRA, there is significant uncertainty as to how the PPT will interrelate with this commercial need to aggregate capital on a tax-efficient basis. … In example D, RCO is a CIV resident in state R, and the majority of its investors are also resident in state R. ... The OECD commentary indicates that even though RCO's investment decisions take into account the tax benefits provided under state R's extensive treaty network, it would not be reasonable to deny benefits to RCO under the treaty between state R and state S. … [T]his example suggests that it would not be reasonable to deny treaty benefits where an investor's decision to invest through a particular investment vehicle is not driven by a particular investment, and a particular investment made by the investment vehicle is not driven by the tax position of its investors. … The usefulness of example D is limited by the assumed fact that the majority of RCO's investors are resident in the same jurisdiction as RCO. ... According to the commentary, it would not be reasonable to deny RCO the benefit of the reduced withholding tax rate under the treaty between state R and state S, because the decision to establish a regional platform in state R was mainly driven by commercial factors. … This example suggests that it is acceptable to use a holding company that is resident in a third jurisdiction to manage a group of regional investments, so long as that holding company has sufficient substance in the jurisdiction in which it is resident. … Arguably, the threshold in, for example, Prévost Car, and Alta Energy may be insufficient. … Example M (p. 874) In example M, Real Estate Fund, a state C partnership treated as fiscally transparent under the domestic tax law of state C, is established to invest in a portfolio of real estate investments in a specific geographic area. ...

. … [T]he lease originator transfers the equipment that is subject to the underlying leases at fair market value to an SPE, often a limited partnership, in consideration…for limited partnership interests, assumed liabilities, and a note issued by the limited partnership…under subsection 97(2). … The limited partnership issues asset-backed notes, either directly to investors or to a conduit trust (that in turn issues commercial paper to investors). ... Alternatively, they can elect to include one or more exempt properties in a separate class for CCA purposes. … [S]ince the principal leasing business requirement must be met throughout each taxation year, including the first taxation year of a newly formed SPE, it is common to transfer a few leased pieces of equipment to the SPE at the time of its formation. ... This issue was raised in a CRA technical interpretation [2002-0156515 where] … A Co, B Co, and C Co each retained 10 percent of the leased equipment. … It is the CRA's position [in IT-443, para. 10] that the gross revenue of the partnership from a particular source is to be included in the gross revenue of the corporation from that source to the extent of the corporation's profit-sharing percentage. … [I]f the activities of the corporation and the partnership are considered to be two separate businesses of the corporation, the following determinations must be made: (1) which business is the corporation's principal business, (2) whether this principal business is the leasing of leasing property, and (3) whether the gross revenue from that principal business is at least 90 percent of the gross revenue of the corporation for the year from all sources. ...

U.S. financing structure using Lux Finco with MRPS (p. 629) [O]ne simple structure that was very popular — at least until the start of the BEPS initiative — used a Canadian parent to fund a Luxembourg subsidiary with mandatorily redeemable preferred shares. ... Still, this approach seems risky and may bump against the PPT antiavoidance rule in the proposed regulations. … [O]ther MNEs based in Canada (and elsewhere) might opt for a third approach that relies on simpler, non-hybrid, third-country financing structures. Some countries that have tax treaties with the United States — for example, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, and Switzerland — have been carefully preparing for a post-BEPS world and offer very competitive corporate tax rates around 10 percent that may bring in business. ...

[fn 48: … OECD Commentary… states that the state of residence should grant a credit in situations where a payment is characterized differently for purposes of an applicable treaty under source state and residence state law. …] Creditability where domestic Treaty override (p.9) Where the source state's domestic law expressly provides for taxation in contravention of a treaty, the treaty crediting mechanism would likely not apply (assuming the relevant treaty rule follows the OECD Model, which provides for a credit in respect of tax imposed "in accordance with the treaty"). ... [fn 50: … 2003-0019751E5 ….] Arguably, this analysis could also be applied where foreign tax is imposed in contravention of a treaty under a domestic anti-treaty shopping rule. ...

. … All subscription agreements will generally have a covenant that the PBC will indemnify FTS holders if the tax deductions promised are not delivered.... ... [f.n. 105 Care must be taken in using the escrow approach with the lookback rule. … [I]t may be necessary for the escrow agreement to provide that the amount that the PBC has been spent on or before December 31 of the first year (at the latest) will be released to the PBC in return for FTS, with the remaining unspent amounts being returned to the investors.] …...In such a case, are the investors actually putting their invested funds at risk? ... [f.n. 106 "Revenue Canada Roundtable" … 1988, … question 23…] ...