Search - 制暴无限杀机 下载

. … Above, it was noted that transactions that fall within sections 51, 86, 87 or 85.1 are carved out of a “merger” in subparagraph 40(3.5)(c)(i). ...

For the purposes of subparagraph 81(1)(h)(i), we are of the view that the children's special allowance [so] paid … is not an amount of family allowance under the LAF and the payment of such an allowance would not preclude the exemption from the social assistance benefit that would otherwise qualify pursuant to paragraph 81(1)(h). ...

The EPSP trust would use an interest-bearing loan from Employerco to fund its purchase of the matching number of Employerco shares and fund the loan interest with dividends on the shares and annual contributions from Employerco – both of which were taxable income to it but with an offsetting interest deduction, so that there would be no annual income inclusion to the participant under s. 144(3). ...

“Moreover, any prior statements to the effect that a particular incentive plan does not give rise to a SDA because it is future-oriented at time of grant should not be construed as a categorical statement that all future-oriented plans fall outside the scope of the SDA rules.” “… [A]n incentive plan can be a SDA before the final value of the units has been determined at the occurrence of the triggering event. ...

. … [T]he filing of the subsection 82(3) election is not inconsistent with the TOSI policy, and this view is not impacted by the ability to late file or amend a subsection 82(3) election. ...

“[C]onsistent with the previously noted longstanding position of the CRA that subsection 220(2.1) cannot override subsection 220(3.2),” it is “Rulings’ view that allowing subsection 220(2.1) to waive a taxpayer’s requirement to file an election not listed in Regulation 600 would negate the specific intention of Parliament in limiting late elections to only those that are prescribed in section 600 of the Regulations” – and, in any event, the CIF provision was not a provision of the Act itself, as required by s. 220(2.1). ...

IX(3) of the Canada-Barbados Treaty apply to preclude Canada from assessing Canco to increase its profits pursuant to ITA s. 247(2) (a “Primary Adjustment”) given that the five year period had passed – but also being mindful that BarbadosCo was an enterprise referred to in Art. ...

. … [G]eographic coherence [also] is required under the Treaty. ...

Rockies Corp, 2005 DTC 289) that "a corporation may opt for whichever instalment method under paragraph 157(1)(a) that it wishes, regardless of the instalment method that is deemed by subsection 161(4.1) to have been used for purposes of computing the corporation's interest in respect of unpaid or late instalments," CRA stated that "a corporation's functional currency election…does not hinder its ability to choose…[an] instalment method under paragraph 157(1)(a)," stated that it "will not consider the use of either the First Instalment Base Method or the Second Instalment Base Method where a reporter's Total EFC Instalments [the total required instalments, as converted to the EFC] using the respective instalment method exceed the reporter's EFC Taxes Payable for the year," and that it was appropriate "that each assessment of the CAD Taxes Payable of a functional currency reporter…[use] the instalment method that gives rise to the least amount of CAD Taxes Payable" – so that when re-determining the CAD Taxes Payable for a particular taxation year as a result of a s. 111(1)(a) deduction of a subsequent year's loss, the same instalment method that was originally used for the particular year is not required to be used to recalculate the CAD Taxes Payable. ...

. … Paragraph XXIX-A(3)…[inter alia requires:] …The item of income is derived from the source state (Canada) in connection with or incidental to that (US) trade or business (including any such income derived directly or indirectly by that resident person (US person) through one or more other persons that are residents of the source state (Canada)) ("Connected Test") …[I]nterest paid or credited by a Canadian resident to a US person might be considered "derived in connection with" a US active business in the following circumstances: the interest is paid or credited in respect of an account payable issued by [sic] the US person in the course of carrying on its US active business, the interest payments are in respect of borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business carried on in Canada that is upstream, downstream or parallel to the US active business ("Canadian-Connected Business"), or the interest payments are funded out of the cash flow from such a Canadian-Connected Business. ...