Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The French translations at first correctly translated "on behalf of" as " ", but then, as a less adequate translation, started using " au nom de ", where the English original continued with "on behalf of". When the French version became the original language in the report to the Council, " au nom de " became the leading term and English followed with "in the name of". Although the Chairman of the Fiscal Committee pointed out that the French text erroneously referred to " au nom de ", this term, and the resulting "in the name of", was eventually approved....... ...

Marquette, "Hybrid Sale of Shares and Assets of a Business", Canadian Tax Journal, (2014) 62:3, 857 – 79.-- summary under Subsection 84(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84- Subsection 84(2) Description of hybrid transaction using external step-up in basis method (pp. 878-9) [T[he hybrid form of transaction for a corporate business sale utilizes both traditional elements of a business acquisition – the purchase of shares and assets – in order to limit the ultimate tax liability incurred by the vendor and to maximize the cost base of assets for the purchaser…. ... [fn 22: … 2003-0029955 … See also Geransky v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 243…] The CRA has confirmed that in such a situation, subsection 84(2) or 245(2) would not normally apply provided that (1) the vendors and the purchaser deal at arm's length, (2) the vendor shareholders receive a cash amount from the purchaser's own funds in return for shares of the target, and (3) the target's assets continue to be used in an active business by the target, or by another entity within the purchaser's corporate group. [fn 23: … 2003-0029955 …] ...

Tina Korovilas, Drew Morier, "Non-Corporate Vehicles in the Foreign Affiliate Context", 2018 Conference Report (Canadian Tax Foundation), 20:1 – 114-- summary under Paragraph 95(2)(y) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 95- Subsection 95(2)- Paragraph 95(2)(y) S. 95(2)(y) does not preclude FA also being FA of partnership (p. 20:61) The CRA has confirmed that the attribution of share ownership from the partnership to its members for FA and QIFA purposes does not prevent the partnership sub from also being an FA and QIFA [FA with a qualifying interest] of the partnership, where the partnership is the relevant taxpayer. [fn 182: … 2011-0415911E5 ….] ...

Interpretation of "formed" (pp. 396 – 398) [T]he word “formed” appears to refer to a corporation that comes into existence as a result of the merger or combination, such as a corporation formed on an amalgamation. … [T]he Tax Court of Canada appears to have interpreted the word “formation" in a similar manner in … 1591141 Alberta …, 2014 TCC 2. … [E]ven if a winding up … could be considered a "merger" or a "combination" under a broad operational definition of those terms, it could not be a merger or combination described in subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i) because it does not result in the formation of a corporation…. ... These provisions include … subsections 87(1) and (8.1) … as well as…subsection 87(8.2)…. … The exclusion of windups in the "amalgamation" and "foreign merger" definitions does not mean that every winding up would otherwise be considered a merger or combination…. ... There is no indication that subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i) was meant to address windups. …. ...

Rulings on securities issued to pay principal or interest (p. 10) CRA has ruled that subsections 143.3(3) and (4)… would not apply to re-determine the relevant amounts in the context of the issuance of trust units in repayment of principal-and-preferred shares in payment of interest [fn 55: … 2008-0300101R3, 2008-0300102R3 and 2009-0350481R3 ….]…It is…unclear whether the CRA's earlier comment in the context of rebates (i.e., the CRA's view that subsection 143.3(3) would apply such that rebates automatically invested at the issuer's option in common shares would not be deductible by the issuer) continues to reflect the view of the CRA and, if so, how it is to be reconciled with the subsequent rulings [fn 56: … 2006-0176321R3 ….] ... 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)]. ...

Kevin Wark, Michael O'Connor, "The Next Phase of Life Insurance Policyholder Taxation is Nigh", Canadian Tax Journal (2016) 64:4, 705 - 50-- summary under Paragraph 148(2)(e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 148- Subsection 148(2)- Paragraph 148(2)(e) Impact of death benefit on adjusted cost basis of a multi-life policy (pp. 730-1) New paragraph 148(2)(e)…applies to a situation where an insurance death benefit is paid that results in a termination of coverage but not termination of the policy—that is, there are other coverages under the policy that remain in effect. If the fund value benefit [f.n. 109… defined in regulation 1401(3)] that is paid out exceeds the maximum amount permitted in respect of the terminated coverage,[f.n. 110: … regulation 306(4)(a)(iii)] a policyholder with an entitlement to the excess portion is deemed to have disposed of a "part of an interest" for proceeds equal to that excess portion. … Example 4 Corporation A purchases a multi-life policy after 2016 with the following coverages: life-insured 1—$1 million; life-insured 2—$100,000. ... In determining the taxable amount of the proceeds, subsection 148(4) will require an allocation of the ACB of the policy as follows: $80,000 (full ACB) × 100,000/120,000 = $66,667. ...

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)(iii)(C) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 149- Subsection 149(1)- Paragraph 149(1)(o.2)- Subparagraph 149(1)(o.2)(iii)- Clause 149(1)(o.2)(iii)(C) Allocated LP income is income derived from an investment (pp. 29:7-9) [T]he technical notes to section 253.1 implicitly contemplate that a partnership interest would be an “investment” for the purposes of paragraph 149(1)(o.2), and it would be illogical to consider that this conclusion is not valid with respect, specifically, to the investment tests in subparagraph 149(1)(o.2)(iii). … [A]nalysis of the meaning of the word “derive” also demonstrates that when an investment corporation acquires an interest in a limited partnership that allocates partnership income or gains to the investment corporation, the income allocated to the investment corporation is derived from that limited partnership interest. … It is clear that the income allocated to an investment corporation by a limited partnership arises (in other words, has its origin or source) only as a result of the investment corporation’s investment in the limited partnership. ... For example … 2000-0055463 …. ...

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. ...

Kevin Yip, "Recent Legislation Affecting Partnerships and Foreign Affiliates – Subsection 88(1) and Section 100", Canadian Tax Journal, (2013) 61:1, 229-256, at 241-242-- summary under Subsection 5905(7) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 5905- Subsection 5905(7) After noting that where property being bumped is an interest in a partnership holding foreign affiliate shares, proposed Reg. 5908(7) applies rather than proposed Reg. 5905(5.4)(a), and describing the formula in proposed Reg. 5908(7), he provided the following example: Example 2 – Facts Subsidiary is a corporation resident in Canada and holds a 50 percent interest in Partnership. ... The formula (A + B – C)/D in proposed regulation 5905(5.2) will apply as follows: A (FA's TFSB is $1,400 ($2,800 x 50% [Subsidiary's SEP in FA]). ... The reduction to FA's exempt surplus is $1,000 ([$1,400 + $300- $1,200]/0.50), but Subsidiary effectively has a reduction of only 50 percent of that amount ($500). ...

Gordon Zittlau, "Corporate Reorganizations Involving Taxable Canadian Property – Foreign Merger Considerations", International Tax Planning (Federated Press), Vol. ... Foreign merger exemption in s. 248(1) – disposition – (n) avoids s. 116 application (p. 1409) [T]he foreign merger exemption deems that no disposition has occurred, and an acquisition may still exist…. ...