Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

. … We consider the 1994 judgment to be the only valid judgment up to the date of the letter …. ...

. … We consider the 1994 judgment to be the only valid judgment up to the date of the letter …. ...

. … [T]he Agency [has] stated that a benefit could result from the use of a corporate asset as security for a personal loan and that position remains valid. … [T]he benefit could be the difference between the interest rate on the loan with the security and the interest rate on a loan without the security. ...

. … We are of the view that the Benefit can be considered to be based on the needs of a beneficiary unit (roughly a family). ... To be exempt … pursuant to section 87 of the Indian Act, the Benefit would have to be personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve. ...

. … [A] prepayment penalty paid to former creditors may not reasonably be considered to have been paid to them in respect of the substitution of a debt obligation where new and different creditors are providing the substituted debt. …[S]ince the SAD Investors are a substantially different group of investors than the SBD Investors … it could not reasonably be considered that the SAD Investors were paid the Redemption Premium “in respect of the substitution of the [SAD]” since it was the SBD Investors, and not the SAD Investors, who provided a substitute debt for the SAD. ...

The taxpayer considers that the phrase “deductible by the partnership in computing that other foreign affiliate’s share of any income … of the partnership” requires solely that the interest amounts be deductible in computing the income of MLP as a whole, suggesting that this would not be the case only if under the partnership agreement the interest amounts were borne entirely, or not at all, by a particular partner. ... (d)(ii)(C) of the “exempt earnings” definition in Reg. 5907(1), CRA concluded: [O]nly 60% of the $10M interest received by FALuxco should be recharacterized as income from an active business (resulting in FALuxco having FAPI of $6M) … because only $4M would be deductible in computing that portion of MLP’s income that is included in computing the amounts prescribed to be FA1’s earnings as determined for purposes of paragraph (a) of the “earnings” definition in subsection 5907(1) of the Regulations. ...

After noting that under s. 248(3)(b), the right of use was deemed to be a trust and the property was deemed to have been transferred to that trust, the Directorate stated: CCRA … considers the use of trust property by a beneficiary of the trust to be a benefit under subsection 105(1), in the case of personal-use property owned by the trust, there is generally no assessment under subsection 105(1) of the benefit that would result from the use of that property. Consequently, the CCRA's position would likely be that Sister would not be liable for tax on a subsection 105(1) benefit …. ...

Thus … a corporation with no assets or liabilities at the end of a taxation year (or a corporation with no liabilities at that time) cannot generally be considered insolvent for the purposes of subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii). ... The condition set out in clause 50(1)(b)(iii)(C) is that the FMV of the shares subject to the subsection 50(1) election must be nil. … [T]he valuation of those shares should normally take into account accumulated tax losses that may eventually be deductible in calculating a corporation's taxable income, as stated in question 5 of the 1992 APFF Conference Roundtable. ...

. … However, we are not prepared to accept an amendment to Monsieur’s tax returns for years prior to XXXXXXXXXX to give him a wholly dependent person credit despite the retroactive clause …. ...

. … This means that where a partner joins an existing partnership, the fact that the partner previously carried on another business has no bearing on the determination of the fiscal period end of the business of the partnership being joined. ... Furthermore, despite the fact that the taxpayer was not a member of the partnership, which he joined, during the fiscal period in which the election under subsection 249.1(4) was made by one of the partners who had the authority to act on behalf of the other partners as stipulated in subsection 96(3) … the taxpayer cannot do otherwise than to comply with the election that is still in effect at the time of his joining the partnership. ...