Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The Directorate responded: In light of paragraph 18 of the Bulletin [IT-518R] … and … Stapley, we are of the view that the use of the expression "enjoyment of entertainment" refers to the act of being entertained rather than to tangible property such as a book, musical instrument or Blu Ray disc player, the use of which could potentially provide a form of entertainment. ...

.-- summary under Paragraph 149.1(4)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 149.1- Subsection 149.1(4)- Paragraph 149.1(4)(a) foundation’s registration subject to revocation because it had invested in a Delaware partnership (with stated separate existence) carrying on business A Quebec private foundation, which had invested in a foreign partnership (FP) that was governed by the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act (DRUPA), submitted that “the FP is a separate legal entity from its members under the statutory provisions of the … DRUPA … by virtue of which it was created and consequently it is the FP that operates the business and not the members,” so that its registration was not subject to revocation under s. 149.1(4)(a). ...

In finding that the condition in s. 22, that there still be outstanding accounts receivable that were required to be included in computing Amalco’s income in respect of that business, appeared to not be met, CRA stated: The only inclusion in income [of] Amalco … in respect of accounts receivable of Predecessor 1 is under 12(1)(d) and it includes in its income a reserve (there is no presumption that the underlying receivable was included by Amalco in its income). Respecting the requirement that Amalco have carried on the Business, the Directorate stated: [Y]ou express the view that because Amalco sold the assets used in the Businesses … minutes after the amalgamation, it did not “carry on the business” of Predecessor 1, hence the election under section 22 was not valid. … That view might arguably be consistent with … Gillen …. However, the Directorate concluded that the election was satisfied (on the basis that the other conditions of s. 22 were satisfied and the business was continued) stating: Provided there is no disruption in the continued operation of the business … the context and purpose of section 22 are satisfied where a corporation resulting from an amalgamation that is governed by section 87 or its predecessor have included receivables from that business in their income and have used property in carrying on that business. ...

According to … Kieboom …, subsection 75(2) could, however, apply where the shares are not subscribed for consideration equal to their fair market value. There is nothing in the Facts to allow us to conclude that Mother transferred any additional economic interest or additional … value to Trust at the time of the freeze. ...

. … [I]f a child is living with another individual who is providing support for the child at the time of the annuitant's death, the child would not be considered to be financially dependent upon the deceased for support at that time. While Individual A's father did make some financial contributions for… care, it was the Crown who supported [him] …. Consequently … Individual A would not be considered to be financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death for the purpose of a deduction under paragraph 60(l)….. ...

CRA stated: [P]aragraph 80.4(3)(b) provides that subsection 80.4(2) does not apply if the loan or debt is included in the debtor's income under another provision of Part I …. ... However, an assessment under subsection 15(2) is not precluded even if the taxpayer has voluntarily declared a benefit under section 80.4, as subsection 15(2) has priority over section 80.4, as stated in paragraph 10 of … IT-421R2 …. ...

. … In addition … February 24, 2004 Legislative Proposals … which provides relief from the application of the loss limitation rule in subsection 93(2) in certain circumstances, confirms, in our view, that this provision is technically applicable in a situation where a loss on the disposition of shares of a FA is solely due to a currency fluctuation. ...

22 May 2009 Internal T.I. 2009-0312791I7 F- Transfert de biens entre un rentier et son REÉR-- summary under Paragraph 251(1)(c) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(1)- Paragraph 251(1)(c) an RRSP trust’s annuitant does not deal at arm’s length under s. 251(1)(c) with the RRSP Before finding that the purchase of RRRSP property (the “Co-op” shares) by the RRSP’s annuitant at cost was to be treated as the payment of a premium by the annuitant to the extent of the excess over the property’s fair market value, CRA stated: You advised us that the annuitant and the trust that governs the annuitant’s RRSP are not related persons within the meaning of paragraph 251(1)(b), since the trust is described in paragraph (a) of the definition of "trust" in subsection 108(1) …. However … the fact that the annuitant and his RRSP are not deemed to be related persons under paragraph 251(1)(b) does not mean that they are not otherwise not dealing with each other at arm's length at any particular time within the meaning of paragraph 251(1)(c). ... In any event, the very fact that the annuitant is prepared, in order to acquire units of the Co-op from the RRSP, to pay an amount that exceeds their FMV, which is nil … confirms in our view that the annuitant and the trust governing the RRSP do not deal at arm's length in this transaction. ...

5 September 2018 Internal T.I. 2017-0698241I7- Interpretation of subsection 93(4)-- summary under Subsection 93(2.01) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 93- Subsection 93(2.01) s. 93(2.01) applied to capital loss resulting from s. 94(3) basis bump But for s. 94(3), a Canadian corporation (ACo) would have realized a capital loss of $1 million on the liquidation and dissolution of a wholly-owned non-resident subsidiary (FA1) which, in turn, held FA2 and FA3.After the Directorate found that s. 94(3) applied to deny the loss and add it to the ACB to ACo of the shares of FA2 and FA3, it then considered the question: If the portion of such denied loss added to the ACB of the FA2 shares under s. 93(4)(b) was $50,000 (resulting in ACo’s ACB of the FA2 shares becoming $100,000 (as otherwise determined under s. 88(3)) + $50,000 = $150,000), would the s. 93(2.01) rules determine ACo’s loss on the disposition of the FA2 shares? ... Absent the subsection 93(2.01) loss limitation rule, ACo would have an otherwise determined (capital) loss of $40,000 (i.e. $110,000- $150,000) arising on its disposition of its FA2 shares …. ...

. … Since LLC1 borrowed funds in a situation where there was no cost to LLC1, the fair market value of the shares of LLC1 have increased as a result of the non-interest bearing loan. … Therefore … at the time the non-interest bearing loan is made, there is an increase in the fair market value of the shares of LLC1 held by NRTrust. ...