Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

The Directorate went on to note that “Son also held contingent beneficial interests in the remaining … Estate [assets], which would only be realized if the other Children die without issue surviving” and that: …[I]t is unlikely that the FMV of Son’s contingent beneficial interests at the Time could result in him being considered a “majority-interest beneficiary” of Father’s Estate. … Accordingly, it is unlikely that the FMV of the total of Son’s respective income or capital interests in Father’s Estate could reasonably be considered to be greater than 50% of the FMV of all of the income or capital interests in Father’s Estate …. ...

.) – or pays an allowance based on a kilometric rate for use of their private vehicles, as well as a meal allowance upon presentation of receipts. Before concluding that the kilometrice allowances likely were not includible pursuant to s. 6(1)(b), CRA stated: Generally speaking, a regular place of work is any place to or from which an employee regularly reports or performs the duties of the employee’s employment. … [Here] the place of work designated in the employment contract is not a regular place of work for the new employees. Consequently, travel between the residence of one of these employees and the employee’s place of work designated in the employment contract would be travel in the performance of the duties of the employee’s office or employment. … Consequently, should the Employer pay a reasonable allowance based on a kilometric rate for employees to use their private vehicle in the submitted situation, that allowance will come within the exception in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(vii.1). ...

In finding that the refund application should be denied, the Directorate stated: [W]here the specific conditions of subsection 227(6) have not been met, the implied exception rule … prevents relief from being available under the more general provision of subsection 220(2.1). Such relief would not be harmonious with … the intention of Parliament to limit Part XIII refund applications to two years after the end of the calendar year in which the amount was paid to the non-resident. … [T]here is no relief available to a taxpayer under the Canada-Barbados Tax Convention to override the two-year limitation period required by subsection 227(6). ...

The Directorate responded: [The] “spousal plan” … definition does not refer to a transfer of an amount from an RPP to an RRSP. … [T]he Act does not require the trustee of an RPP to keep a record that an amount was transferred to the trustee from an RRSP that was a spousal plan. … In circumstances where taxpayers make transfers between RRSPs or RRIFs through an RPP in order to avoid the attribution rules in subsections 146(8.3) or 146.3(5.1), the Agency may consider applying the general anti-avoidance provision. ...

6 July 2011 Internal T.I. 2010-0357461I7 F- CII RS&DE-- summary under Subsection 127(8.3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(8.3) proportionate ITCs allocated to specified member in proportion to capital can then be reallocated under s. 127(8.3) to non-specified member A partnership, which has made $1,000,000 in eligible SR & ED expenditures, consists of two associated partners: the first is a partner other than a specified member which is a CCPC and which contributes $1,000 to the partnership; and the second is a specified member which is a non-CCPC corporation which contributes $999,000. ... [S]ince the total of the taxable income of the partner who is not a specified member and the taxable income of the specified member exceeds the business limit of the partner who is not a specified member, the partner who is not a specified member is not a qualifying corporation …. That partner would therefore not be entitled to the refundable ITCs provided for in section 127.1 …. ...

The employees each sleep in the truck’s cab as a security measure, so that no expenses are generally incurred by them for accommodation – but their meal expenses, amounting to around $40 per day, are approximately twice the allowance amounts in scenarios 1 and 3 based inter alia on assumptions as to the number of kilometres travelled. ... In addition… the costs of showers are also considered to be deductible as accommodation expenses where a transport employee sleeps in the cab of the truck rather than in a hotel. … [A]n allowance for accommodation expenses calculated exclusively on the basis of distance, time or other criteria will not be considered reasonable if it does not represent an estimate of the cost of accommodation that may be incurred by the employee during the travel that generated entitlement to the allowance. … [W]here an employee sleeps in the truck cab, it is unlikely that the allowances for accommodation expenses in the three scenarios provided will be considered reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b). ...

Although the Taxpayer mostly had not deducted the amounts of the Interest Debt, in its return (apparently for Year X), the Taxpayer added such amounts to its non-capital losses at the beginning of the year – then in Year X+1, it deducted the forgiven amount, equalling the difference between the Interest Debt and the fair market value of its assets, from the balance of its non-capital losses. ... After describing the Taxpayer as having a right to reduce the Interest Debt that was contingent upon the conditions precedent, stating that such right was “exercisable” as it was “’capable of being made effective in action’ or ‘capable of being implemented’,” and after noting the Taxpayer’s submission that “for a right to be ‘exercisable,’ the taxpayer must have a positive right to reduce an amount,” so that “automatic reductions… beyond the control of the taxpayer would not be caught under the definition of a ‘right to reduce’,” CRA concluded: [T]he Taxpayer’s right to reduce the Interest Debt is contingent upon a series of conditions that are set out in the Plan, including the Conditions Precedent, and … falls within the definition of a “right to reduce” in subsection 143.4(1) because it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all the circumstances, that the right will become exercisable. … Further, even if the Interest Debt is settled in a subsequent year, there should be no double taxation [given] (a)(i) of the definition of “excluded obligation”…. ...

2 October 2006 Internal T.I. 2006-0168081I7 F- Actions d'une société en faillite-- summary under Subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 50- Subsection 50(1)- Paragraph 50(1)(b)- Subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) if s. 50(1)(b)(iii) conditions are satisfied in a year, the election can be made in a subsequent year – but not if the corporation was a bankrupt in the first year After the appointment of a trustee, two subsidiary corporations of the taxpayer corporation filed notices of intention under s. 50.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") to make a proposal, and renewed the notices. ... However, the Directorate noted that, in contrast, under s. 50(1)(b)(i) “if the condition in subparagraph 50(1)(b)(i) is satisfied in a year and the taxpayer does not elect to recognize a deemed disposition for that year, it will not, in our view, be able to make the election in a subsequent year” – so that no loss could be recognized because no election had been made until the subsequent year. Furthermore: Given that the legal status of a taxpayer differs depending on whether it is bankrupt or merely insolvent … the provisions of subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) are not intended to cover the situation of a taxpayer who has become bankrupt. ...

Did the interest-free loan generate Part XIII tax and, if so, who had the obligation to collect and remit the tax – and how could it be collected? ... Subsection 15(9) then provides a deeming rule that transforms the subsection 80.4(2) benefit into a shareholder benefit under subsection 15(1). … If subsection 15(1) could only apply where there was a direct shareholder relationship between the benefit recipient and the benefit conferrer, it would not only render the “connected” concept under subsection 80.4(2) meaningless, but also would imply that the only purpose of subsection 80.4(2) is to provide a formula for the calculation of a subsection 15(1) benefit. … As the “shareholder” in subsection 15(1), Foreign Sub would be the taxpayer who is deemed to have received the dividend under paragraph 214(3)(a), and it is therefore Foreign Sub who is liable for the withholding tax imposed under subsection 212(2).... ...

. … We understand that under US GAAP, OCI is a component of equity that is presented separately from retained earnings and paid-in capital …. IFRS similarly requires that OCI be presented as a separate component of equity and not included in retained earnings. … However, since the Taxpayer’s financial statements are prepared using GAAP of another country, the CRA could question the appropriateness of reporting any specific item as OCI, rather than retained earnings, where such treatment deviates from the treatment under Canadian GAAP (including IFRS) and such deviation has a significant impact on the amount of deductible interest under the thin capitalization rules. ...