Search - 三河市 市委书记 现任

-United Kingdom Income Tax Treaty, Article 10(3) (stating, "The term 'dividends' for … United States tax purposes includes any item which under the law of the United States is treated as a distribution out of earnings and profits " (emphasis added)).] ...

Eric Lockwood, Maria Lopes, "Subsection 88(3): Deferring Gains on Liquidation and Dissolution", Canadian Tax Journal (2013) 61:1, 209-28, p. 209-- summary under Subsection 88(3.3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 88- Subsection 88(3.3) They use the facts in the example below (set out at p. 215) to illustrate in various scenarios that a taxpayer (Canco) will realize a capital gain on the disposition of its shares of the disposing affiliate (Foreignco 1) – even where there has been a qualifying liquidation and dissolution (QLAD) election- where the adjusted cost base of Foreignco 1 in the distributed property, i.e., the inside basis, exceeds Canco's ACB of its Foreignco 1 shares, i.e., the outside basis: Assumptions Canco is a company incorporated and resident in Canada for the purposes of the Act. ... They then turn (at p. 220) to the potential relief provided by the suppression election: … Canco can elect under proposed subsection 88(3.3) for Foreignco 1 to have disposed of its shares of Foreignco 2 for PD equal to a claimed amount of $1,000. ...

Deletion of "required to be" from s. 92(1)(a) (pp. 4-5) [T}he wording in respect of the ACB addition mandated by paragraph 92(l)(a) was amended from "any amount required to be included... by reason of subsection 91(1) … in computing the taxpayer's income" to "any amount included … under subsection 91(1)... in computing the taxpayer's income. ...

Embedded interest in forward as an underlying interest (p. 2199) … The technical notes reiterate that the concept of an "underlying interest" is intended to be interpreted broadly, and list several examples. ... Full tainting of gain (p. 2199) … the revised DFA rules continue to treat the full amount of the inclusion under paragraph 12(l)(z.7) or deduction under paragraph 20(1)(xx) on income account, even if that gain is only partially attributable to a "bad interest", and even if that "bad interest" would not itself have been on income account if realized directly. ...

. … Spinco is not a shareholder of Canco at any time in the series, and thus paragraph 55(3.2)(h) does not deem Spinco to be a transferee corporation. ... Three-party exchange is a "permitted exchange" (p. 7) Moreover, subparagraph 55(3.1)(b)(i) does not apply to the three-party share exchange because the transaction is a "permitted exchange" under paragraph (b) of the definition of that term in subsection 55(1). … The acquirer is not required to acquire the distributing corporation's shares; it must only be "another corporation. ...

Example showing shunting of income to second calendar year following AOC (p. 4) … ACo's share of Partnership AB's income is $1,200 for the fiscal periods ending January 31, 2015 and January 31, 2016, and $1,500 for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2017. ... Also, the example demonstrates that notwithstanding the ASPA rules, some stub periods may not include partnership income. …. ...

. … The CRA has long maintained that subsection 107(4.1), which as a precondition to its application, requires that "subsection 75(2) was applicable...at a particular time in respect of any property" of the trust or of a trust that received the property pursuant to a qualifying disposition before that time, does not require that income, gain,, or loss has actually been attributed to the settlor of the trust under subsection 75(2)….[fn 133: …9207365…See also 9714685….] … [T]he basis for the CRA's position appears to be that the word "applicable in paragraph 107(4.1)(b) is broader than the word "applied,"… [T]he CRA's interpretation of subsection 107(4.1) effectively reads down the postamble to subsection 75(2).… Further extension of s. 107(4.1) (p. 330) [A]mendments…extend subsection 107(4.1) to apply not only if subsection 75(2) was applicable at a particular time in respect of any property of the trust but also if subsection 75(2) "would have been applicable if it were read without reference to the phrase while the person is resident in Canada' and subsection 75(3) were read without reference to paragraph (c.2). ...

. … [T]he Shareholder is deemed to be owed a nil amount under the arrangement by taxpayer because, in the above formula: A is the amount of direct debt (i.e., $30), B is the amount of indirect debt (i.e., $40), (A- B) is negative, and hence is deemed to be nil....NR Funder will be treated as the "ultimate funder" in respect of the entire amount of direct debt… Full allocation of direct loan to shareholder equity if no indirect loan (pp. 14-15) [Another] arrangement… is identical to the above except there is no indirect debt (for instance, the $30 direct debt may be funded entirely or at least as to $20 out of surplus funds derived from operations)…. ... This leads to an arguably anomalous result, in that the Taxpayer will be deemed to have paid the full amount of actual interest to Shareholder (even though Shareholder at most funded $10/$30 = 1/3 of the direct debt)…. ...

Gerrit Groen, "The Nature and Scope of the Mandatory Arbitration Provision in the OECD Multilateral Convention (2016)", Bulletin for International Taxation, November 2017, p. 607-- summary under Article 20 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Multilateral Instrument- Article 20 Nature of specific case mutual agreement procedure under OECD Model (p. 609) Once the taxpayer has filed an application for a specific case MAP under article 25(1) of the OECD Model … [t]he procedure…consists of two stages. ... Low taxpayer involvement in arbitration procedure (p. 610) [T]he mandatory arbitration provision in the MLI functions as an extension of the specific case MAP …. ...

-resident members Article X(6) of the US Treaty … read[s]…: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as preventing [Canada] from imposing a tax on the earnings of a company attributable to permanent establishments in [Canada], in addition to the tax which would be chargeable on the earnings of a company which is a resident of [Canada], provided that any additional tax so imposed shall not exceed [5%]….” ... Read in light of Article XXV, it is clear that the purpose of Article X(6) of the Treaty is not, contrary to the interpretation favoured by the CRA, to relieve US residents from the imposition of branch profits tax – Article XXV already does that. ...