Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The CRA’s position is that the deemed year-end in subsection 249(3.1) does not occur when a corporation undergoes a change in status if the corporation has made a subsection 89(11) election in the same taxation year [fn 50: … 2010-0377251E5 … 2014-055019117 … and … 2014-0523171E5] because subsection 89(11) applies from the beginning of the year in which the change in status occurs. ...

Application of the requirement – that the proceeds be received by the grantor of the non-compete covenant or an eligible corporation thereof – to a trust or partnership (pp.12-13) [Under s. 56.4(7)(b)] generally, consideration must be received by either the "taxpayer" or an "eligible corporation" of the taxpayer. ... The reference to " the amount" rather than " an amount" suggests that it may be necessary to allocate to each partner that portion of the goodwill amount that directly represents consideration for the Non-Competition Covenant granted by that party…. ...

Canada Revenue Agency (" Leroux "), [fn 2: 2012 DTC 5050 (BCCA).] ... (" Gordon "), [fn 3: 2013 DTC 5112 (FC).], and McCreight v. ... Indicia of negligence (p.1) In all three cases, the courts dismissed the Crown's motions to strike certain of the taxpayers' claims – including negligence – and, in doing so, demonstrated that some civil actions against the CRA may have a reasonable chance of success at trial. ...

Éric Hamelin, "Post Mortem Pipeline: The CRA Relaxes Its Position", Tax for the Owner-Manager, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 2020, p. 6-- summary under Subsection 84(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84- Subsection 84(2) Immediate receipt of cash on pipeline to fund s. 70(5) taxes, p. 6 [I]n … 2018-0789911R3 … the CRA relaxed its longstanding position and accepted that upon the sale of shares to a new company an estate could immediately receive cash directly from the surpluses of the company in the testator's possession to "fund income taxes resulting from the application of subsection 70(5)" (my translation). ... The CRA had previously accepted that a target company could lend an estate a sum that bore interest at market rates in order to fund the payment of income taxes pending repayment of the note (see … 2014-0540861R3 … and 2012-0456221R3 …). ...

. … [A]ssume that a CFA (CFA 1) of a CCPC earned $100 in year 1 of the CCPC. … [T]he income inclusion would be completely offset by a deduction under subsection 91(4) because CFA 1 paid FAT of $35. ... By contrast, if CFA 1 paid FAT of only $21 because of the reduced US corporate rate, then the CCPC would recognize a $16 income inclusion in year 1.46 This $16 would be added to the CCPC’s ACB of the CFA 1 shares, pursuant to paragraph 92(1)(a). … [A]ssume that CFA 1 then repatriated the after-tax amount ($100 − $35 = $65) to the CCPC in year 2. Assuming that the amount was FAPI earned by CFA 1, the CCPC would be entitled to a full deduction under paragraph 113(1)(b) (that is, UFT ($35) × RTF − 1 (3) = $105). ...

[fn 7: Kemp …3 DTC 1078 (Ex Ct) at paras 12-14; G ilhooly … [1945] CTC 203 (Ex Ct) at paras 22-23; … Hollinger … [1963] S.C.R. 131.] ... [fn 9: … 2012-0444091C6 …] Example of look-through approach (p. 3) [A] parent owns shares of a subsidiary valued at $40 and holds $50 of cash. ... [fn 11: Equal to (17% × $40 (value of subsidiary shares) + $40 (parent cash)) / $90 (total parent assets.] ...

.] … The ACB denial rules can cause a parent's shares of its subsidiary to have mismatched tax attributes. ... Example illustrating punitive effect of CDA penalty rule (p. 6) [A]n individual owns all of the shares of a private corporation resident in Canada (“ Holdco ”). Holdco owns all of the shares of another Canadian-resident corporation (" Opco ") having a fair market value of $100, PUC of nil, and ACB of nil. ...

This can be problematic from a thin cap perspective …. First …: GP controls Holdco through the control provisions in the fund's LPA and, as such, is a "specified shareholder" of Holdco ….; and Sisterco is … not dealing at non-arm's length with GP, and so the Holdco loan is an "outstanding debt to a specified non-resident”. ... In addition … paragraph 18(7)(a) … deems the partners of a partnership to own their proportionate portion of the underlying shares … [so that the] fund LPs would … be deemed to own their proportionate share of the underlying Holdco shares. ...

[f.n. 40 … 9507845 …].... Although no renunciation of a relevant expenditure is permitted unless the PBC actually issues a share or right to a share, nothing prevents a PBC and a FTS subscriber from executing a subscription agreement before any consideration is paid to the PBC or the FTS is issued. ... [f.n. 46 … 9604945 …]. ...

[fn 21: … 2003-0051741R3 [and] … 2004-0105611R3 …] This policy was adopted when the customary amount of the “interim payments” was not substantial in the context of total project cost. ... Projectcos continue to rely on the above-referenced rulings and treat the prepayments as reducing the capital cost of class 14 assets. … If a substantial portion of the revenue from the project is being received at the end of each construction phase, such amounts may be treated as construction revenue rather than as a government subsidy toward a capital asset. ... Instead, such amounts are income as received …[fn 23 … IT-464R …quoted in … 2012-045508117]. ...