Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

21 September 2016- 10:42pm CRA confirms that it makes no difference if safe income is too low because of incentive tax deductions Email this Content In the course of a discussion of s. 55(2.1)(b) that is largely repetitive of previous published positions, CRA reduced to writing a comment it made orally at the June 2016 National Technical Seminar that even “if corporate income has not previously been taxed…because the corporation was entitled to certain [incentive] tax benefits under the Act…then a dividend paid by the corporation from such income should be subject to subsection 55(2) unless none of the purposes of the dividend is described in proposed paragraph 55(2.1)(b)” – and added (implying that someone had argued the contrary) that this is also the case even where the funds received by the shareholder instead are in the form of redemption proceeds funded with borrowed money. ...

Summary of Lucie Lamarre and Isida Ranxi, "Taxpayer Rights and Voluntary Compliance: The Example of the Canadian Judiciary," Tax Notes International, 3 October 2016, p. 61 under General Concepts – Evidence. ...

CRA found that as s. 7(1)(b) rather than s. 7(1)(a) applied to this disposition of the employee’s rights, the s. 110(1)(d.1) deduction was not available – and then went on to find that the s. 110(1)(d) deduction was not available for the same reason, stating: [S]ubparagraph 110(1)(d)(i) will not be satisfied as an employee does not “acquire the share under the agreement”, as required under subparagraph 110(1)(d)(i). ...

30 October 2016- 11:29pm CRA is negative on using a stock dividend of nominal value discretionary shares to shift value to an affiliated company Email this Content An individual) holding Class A common shares of Opco with substantial safe income on hand (“SIOH”) and an undisclosed ACB, receives a stock dividend of Class B discretionary voting shares, which are voting, participating, bear discretionary dividends and are redeemable by Opco for $1 – and then transfers the Class B share to a new Holdco under s. 85(1). ...

Summaries of 7 October 2016 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable, carryforward of 2013 APFF Roundtable, Q.2 under s. 54 – personal-us property and Reg. 1102(2). ...

Assuming that the yield of a preferred unit as a percentage of its liquidation (or redemption) entitlement was different than that for a common unit, it would have a different percentage entitlement to trust property than its percentage entitlement to income – so that effectively the ruling (similarly to the others) affirmed that this result was not one of the main purposes of the trust terms. ...

Summary of 29 November 2016 CTF Annual Roundtable, Q.5 under s. 207.01(1) – advantage- (b)(i). ...

Where the matter instead has not been previously considered by the GAAR Committee, the TSO will refer the matter to Headquarters prior to issuing of the proposal letter – so that it would generally only issue a proposal letter if Headquarters recommends GAAR’s application. ...

19 December 2016- 12:37am CRA indicates that draft s. 13(42)(a) operates to avoid double taxation on an arm’s length sale of a Class 14.1 property where a NAL transferor previously claimed a capital gains exemption Email this Content Where, prior to 2017, an addition to a taxpayer’s CEC was reduced based on a non-arm’s length transferor realizing a gain for which the capital gains exemption was claimed, there will be an upward adjustment under draft s. 13(42)(a) based on this amount where there is an arm’s length sale after January 1, 2017 of what now is a Class 14.1 property – so that effectively (unlike a previous version of the draft legislation) a double recognition of capital gain would appear to be avoided. ...

Summary of 22 September 2016 External T.I. 2015-0594721E5 Tr under s. 28(1)(b). ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ...