Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

9 May 2002 Internal T.I. 2002-0135307 F- Application du paragraphe 39(2)-- summary under Dividend Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Dividend a dividend is any corporate distribution other than of PUC Before going on to find that if a distribution made from a Delaware subsidiary’s surplus would be a dividend for ITA purposes if it was a dividend under the Delaware corporate law, the Directorate stated: Generally … a dividend includes any distribution of property by a corporation to its shareholders, with the exception of a distribution that constitutes a return of paid-up capital in respect of a class of shares of the corporation (see documents # E 9415515, E 9428025 and E 9515666). In this regard, whether or not the corporation is resident in Canada is irrelevant …. ...

. … [In particular] the time limitations in subsections 152(3.1) and (4) apply to returns that are determined rather than assessed. … [Therefore] the rule in subparagraph 152(4)(a)(ii) applies to waivers regarding determinations, meaning that the waiver would have to be produced within the three year period set out in subsection 152(1.4). … As such, we agree with your conclusion that the Minister cannot accept an amended partnership return after the statute-barred date of the partnership. ...

CRA responded: Under the civil law in force in Quebec, the delivery of an outstanding cheque does not constitute payment … [and] the date of payment of a debt settled by cheque is considered to be the date on which the cheque is honored or paid by the bank …. [Here] the cheques in circulation and not yet cashed do not constitute payments of the amounts due to Opco's suppliers and … consequently, there can be no reduction in the amount of the cash of Opco as long as the bank does not honor or pay such cheques. ...

.-- summary under Subsection 126(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 126- Subsection 126(3) organization that brought together states, government agencies and non-governmental organizations did not qualify as an intergovernmental organization In finding that an organization did not qualify under s. 2, the Directorate stated: Under section 2 … an "international organization" means an intergovernmental organization of which two or more states are members. ... It therefore appears to us that XXXXXXXXXX is not an intergovernmental organization, but rather a non-governmental organization. … Consequently, income from employment with XXXXXXXXXX cannot give rise to a tax credit under subsection 126(3) …. ...

After the Excise and GST/HST Rulings Directorate queried the view in 2014-0530691E5 that: a professional status would generally have to be acknowledged in the statute itself to satisfy the “recognized by statute” condition in subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) …. the Income Tax Rulings Directorate changed course and concluded: [F]or purposes of the meaning of the phrase “professional status recognized by statute” … applying a textual, contextual and purposive analysis, a “professional status” can be “recognized by a statute” for purposes of subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) … even if it is only recognized in the supporting regulations of an act. ...

CRA further indicated that “because both the father and the mother have an obligation to support their children … where court costs have been incurred to increase child support or to make child support non-taxable, the CRA accepts that those costs are deductible in computing the taxpayer's income.” ... [W]ith respect to the taxpayer's claim for increased support from her former spouse for the benefit of the son born of the marriage … the underlying legal expenses are [not] deductible from the taxpayer's income. Although the jurisprudence indicates that the right to such support is not extinguished by the dissolution of the marriage and that the related legal fees are current in nature … the amounts claimed by the taxpayer [do not] truly constitute support, since the taxpayer has no discretion as to the use of the funds under subsection 56.1(1) and the definition of "support" in subsection 56.1(4). … [T]he fact that the legal proceedings are currently suspended can [not] affect the deductibility of the expenses in question. ...

While Farmparts Distributing creates uncertainty … to the extent any portion of the Upfront Payment could be allocated to the use of the patent or the trade-mark, such portion of the Upfront Payment would be subject to Canadian withholding tax. ... Thus …we are not inclined to recommend challenging the Distribution Agreement. … The Directorate went on to find that the Upfront Payment was subject to withholding under s. 212(1)(i) but for the Treaty exemption in Art. ... Furthermore: [T]he Supply Payments … represent a purchase price for the product rather than payments for the use of various intellectual property associated with the products. ...

CRA stated (TaxInterpretations translation) that here there was " a series of lump sum payments to be made upon the occurrence of specific events, so that they do not qualify as royalties, per se." However, having regard to the expansive effect of ss. 212(1)(d)(i) to (v), and given that " these payments relate to a licence respecting the use or right to use the patent in regard to XXXXXXXXXX, these payments are subject to tax under Part XIII …." ...

CRA stated: In general … where the employee's overall health improves as a result of physical activity, resulting in an improvement in the performance of his or her duties (for example, the employee uses sick time less often) … the CRA considers that the employee benefits primarily from the payment or reimbursement and receives a taxable benefit for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a). However, it is possible that the nature of the duties of a particular employment/or the particular conditions of an employment contract require an employee to maintain a good level of physical fitness. … [Here] although a satisfactory physical condition may be an asset to the Employees, it does not appear to be a requirement for them to maintain their employment with the Employer. ...

In finding that Corporation A was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation by virtue of the de jure control of Corporation E, the Directorate stated: Corporation A was excluded from the definition of CCPC … by virtue of paragraph (a) of the CCPC definition because it was controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever by an N-R, Corporation E. Corporation E exercised effective (de jure) control over Corporation A through Corporation D by virtue … of the USA, which accorded to Corporation D a share acquisition right, referred to in paragraph 251(5)(b), over all of the shares of the capital stock of Corporation A that it did not already own. ... Consequently, for the purposes of the CCPC definition, Corporation D was deemed to own all of the shares of Corporation A …. ...