Search - 侵犯公民个人信息罪 交易明细 计算条数

.-- summary under Payment & Receipt Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Payment & Receipt Discharge by paying creditor's debt (pp. 20-1) As a general rule, a debtor can discharge a debt only by payment to the creditor personally, However, if the creditor asks the debtor to pay a third party and the debtor pays the third party qua agent, such payment will be effective to discharge the debt. ... & Co. v. "The Mecca ", a rule which has been often applied in Canadian cases: When a debtor is making a payment to his creditor he may appropriate the money as he pleases, and the creditor must apply it accordingly. ...

Élisabeth Robichaud, Marie-Emmanuelle Vaillancourt, "An Avoidable Threat to the Protection of Solicitor-Client Privilege", Perspectives on Tax Law & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, September 2023, p. 11-- summary under Subsection 237.4(18) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 237.4- Subsection 237.4(18) Chambre des notaires found that a limitation imposed on solicitor-client privilege (SCP) that was “not absolutely necessary to achieve the purposes of the ITA” thereby infringed on s. 8 of the Charter. Furthermore, that case found that it was “ not absolutely necessary here to rely on notaries or lawyers rather than on alternative sources in order to obtain the information or documents being sought.” ...

Gold, Chris Sheridan, "Statutory Ratification", Canadian Tax Journal, (2016) 64:1, 293-325-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission Distinction between Juliar and contract rescission cases (pp. 305-306) Performance Industries and Shafron are non-tax, contract cases. ...

Combined with the fact that section 219.1 uses the term “amount” of a debt and not its “principal amount” … the text of subsection 219.1(1) suggests that the amount of a debt for departure tax purposes might not be intended to be limited to the principal amount of the debt. Contrary interpretation could foster avoidance (pp. 18:20-21) A purposive analysis of section 219.1 also appears to support the foregoing interpretation; if it did not, it appears that the application of the formula in section 219.1 might allow departure tax to be avoided, … [A] corporation borrows $100 with a fixed interest rate and lends the proceeds to another entity in the corporate group …. [I]nterest rates … increase, such that the corporation’s debts (both receivable and payable) have an inherent trading discount of $5. ...

Hersh Joshi, Jack Silverson, "Understanding and Doing Business with Tax-Exempt Entities", 2018 Conference Report (Canadian Tax Foundation), 29:1 – 35-- summary under Clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 149- Subsection 149(1)- Paragraph 149(1)(o.2)- Subparagraph 149(1)(o.2)(ii)- Clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A) Issues where co-investing in real estate (pp. 29:18-19) [A] pension plan may want to co-invest…[and] might establish a real estate corporation…. … If the real estate corporation performs any activities in relation to the real estate property, a concern may arise as to whether the real estate corporation has satisfied the requirement of subclause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A)(I), given that it would be performing activities on a real estate property part of which is not owned by the corporation, by another real estate corporation, or by a registered pension plan. … [Subsequently to … 9401608, CRA] stated that it had re-examined its position and was now of the view that a co-ownership situation would not jeopardize a real estate corporation’s tax status. Further, the CRA provided that the activities carried on by the real estate corporation in relation to the co-owned property should be proportionate to the interests held by “qualified” entities under subclause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A)(I) (that is, by the real estate corporation, by another real estate corporation, or by a registered pension plan) …. … Pension plans looking to co-invest in real estate property may want to avoid these issues by using a structure…. ...

Under the proposals, all dividends and capital gains — to everybody — will be split income and taxed at the top rate. ... It is rare to see less-active participants paid even as much as $100,000 — beyond that, the benefits of income splitting are quite small anyway. ... When the business recovers, she pays back double. … The nature of the small business financed by family is that the appropriate arm's-length return is almost impossible to calculate — in many cases, no arm's-length person would finance the operation on any terms. ...

Although the terms in which the court [in … R v. Christophe, 2009 ONCJ 586] describes the intent of the 10 percent rule are broad, the court essentially echoes the statement of legislative intent by finding the purpose of the rule to be the diversification of investments and loans, such that risk is not pooled in any one person. … In September 2000, OSFI sent a memo to all members of the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (which included the CRA) stating that OSFI would adopt an interpretation according to which the 10 percent rule needed to be satisfied at the plan level rather than at the level of the individual investment corporation. A similar ruling was given in… 2005-0126841R3 … When it comes to interpreting two statutes with overlapping subject matter, a common-law presumption exists that the statutes should be interpreted in a coherent and consistent manner. … [T]he CRA … confirmed that the 10 percent rule for the purposes of the preamble in subparagraph 149(1)(o.2)(iii) was to be applied at the plan level and not at the corporation level. [fn 76: 2013-050832117] 30% rule (pp. 29:28-29) “[T] he 30 percent rule”) is found in section 11 of the PBSA investment rules, and it provides… 11(1) Subject to subsection (2), the administrator of a plan shall not, directly or indirectly, invest the moneys of the plan in the securities of a corporation to which are attached more than 30 per cent of the votes that may be cast to elect the directors of the corporation. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of investments in securities of (a) a real estate corporation; (b) a resource corporation; or (c) an investment corporation. … [T]he 30 percent rule applies only to securities to which more than 30 percent of the voting rights to elect directors are attached …. ...

For these purposes, “Canadian resource property” is defined in section 370(b) of the QTA [by reference to] … a mineral resource in Canada …. ... On a literal reading of the relevant dispositions of the Q TA, these shares would constitute TQP … The result would be the same where the Canadian corporation was instead a foreign corporation. ... [Footnote 102 … document no. 07-010503 ….]. ...

– Limitations on Expenditures Pursuant to Sections 143.3 and 143.4", draft version of paper for CTF 2043 Conference Report.-- summary under Cost Amount Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Cost Amount Whether money has cost amount (pp. 10-11) Section 143.3 applies to limit the cost of "property" acquired by the taxpayer, and does not include an express carve-out for money. … It may be that the Department of Finance determined that a clarifying rule was unnecessary since the general scheme of the Act suggests that money does not have a cost amount and that a taxpayer does not realize a gain or loss on the disposition of money, other than in the context of foreign currency fluctuations. ... By way of example: • paragraph 88(l)(d) refers to "the cost amount to the subsidiary of the property immediately before the winding-up, plus the amount of any money of the subsidiary on hand immediately before the winding-up";…[also citing, ss. 88(1)(d), 87(9), 98(3)(a)(ii), 89(1) – GRIP. 108(1) – cost amount, 132(4)]. ...

Jim Kahane, Uros Karadzic, Simon Létourneau-Laroche, "A Fresh Look at Retirement Compensation Arrangement: A Flexible Vehicle for Retirement Planning", Canadian Tax Journal (2013) 61:2, 479 – 502.-- summary under Paragraph 60(t) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 60- Paragraph 60(t) Practical effect of limitation (p. 487) In cases where an employee's contribution does not meet these conditions [for deduction under s. 8(1)(m.2)] – for example, because the employee is not legally required to contribute to the RCA – the employee may be entitled to a deduction at a later time when there is an income inclusion from the RCA, such as when the employee retires or dies. ... [fn 36: … Explanatory Notes… December 1997….] The deduction is limited to the amount of the benefit included in income for a given year. ... [fn 37: …2005-013240107….] … ...