Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

Can the minor child be considered, in these Scenarios, to have sole beneficial interest in the amounts payable under the annuity as required by s. 60(l)(ii)(B) as it was proposed to be amended [which stipulated that the annuity be one "under which the taxpayer, or a trust under which the taxpayer is the sole person beneficially interested in amounts payable under the annuity, is the annuitant …"]? CRA responded: February 27, 2004 … Legislative Proposals … indicate … that the child will be able to benefit from the provisions of paragraph 60(l) as long as the child is the only beneficiary of the trust, before the child’s death, who has an interest in the amounts payable under the annuity. Nowhere in the Act is the expression "amounts payable under the annuity" defined. … Pratte J.A. in Bensol Customs Brokers … explain[ed] the scope of the word “under”: "A claim is made under a statute, in my view, when that statute is the law which, assuming the claim to be well founded, would be the source of the plaintiff's right". … Under this analysis, therefore, the annuity must be the source of the beneficiary's right to collect. … [I]t is our view that the annuities described in these Scenarios would be annuities described in clause 60(l)(ii)(B) to the extent that the Legislative Proposals are adopted. ...

. … … In your opinion, it would be appropriate... to divide … the shares into two lots of equal value. ...

CRA stated: It appears … that the sale of the shares of Holdco B and Holdco A by Holdco C takes place as part of the same series of transactions as the share redemptions …. While it might be reasonable to conclude that the deemed dividends … do not affect the fair market value of the Holdco A and Holdco B shares (and consequently any capital gain realized by Holdco C on its disposition of such shares), such dividends would reduce a portion of the capital gain that, but for such dividend, would have been realized on a disposition at fair market value of any shares (i.e., the shares of Realco and Opco). … … If the shares of Opco and Realco represent more than 10% of the value of Holdco A and Holdco B.. then … clause 55(3)(a)(iii)(B) and clause 55(3)(a)(iv)(B) will technically apply. …[P]aragraph 55(3)(a) is intended to provide an exemption from the application of subsection 55(2) for certain dividends received in the course of related-party transactions. … [S]ince the other direct or indirect shareholders of Holdco A are not related persons, and the transactions … include a sale of Holdco A shares as part of the same series as the deemed dividends … the application of subsection 55(2) is operating as intended. ...

. … … [T]he price adjustment clause … reduce[d] the redemption value of the Rollover Preferred Shares from $2,000,000 to $1,000,000…. [S]ubsection 191(4) would not apply … on the basis that no amount was actually and validly designated in respect of each of the Rollover Preferred Shares on the transfer of assets by Pubco to Subco, or on the basis that the amount originally designated in respect of each of those shares would exceed the fair market value of the assets transferred by Pubco to Subco. ...

. … … Tinhorn Creek …concluded that winemaking was linked to viticulture and was an integral part of the taxpayer's farming business. ...

Thus, a partner receiving undivided interests in shares held by a partnership in accordance with subsection 98(3) could be considered to hold shares of the corporation for the purpose of determining whether the recipient is entitled to the capital gains deduction …. … [T]he shareholder has held the undivided interests in the shares for more than 24 months and will continue to hold them until their disposition. ...

. … … [T]he question of whether a contract is a lease agreement or a contract of sale should be resolved on the basis of the legal relationships created by the terms of an agreement, rather than by an assessment of the underlying economic reality (as indicated by GAAP). ...

. … [W]here a property is a capital property, in the absence of plans to proceed with the development of a subdivision, making application to the relevant authority for approval of a plan to subdivide would not, in and by itself, cause the property to be considered as being converted to inventory. Where this is the case, the entire amount of a forfeited deposit would be considered capital in nature …. … [If] a conversion of the land from a capital property to a trading property has taken place … [t]he taxpayer would have a notional capital gain on the date of conversion which would not be considered to give rise to taxable capital gains until the year in which the lots were actually sold. ...

Consequently, in a situation where a corporation can demonstrate that life insurance proceeds that were paid directly to a financial institution have reduced its debt to the financial institution, the life insurance proceeds will be considered as "received" by that corporation for the purpose of applying subparagraph (d)(ii) of the definition of CDA …. In addition, comments in paragraph 6 of … IT-430R3 … will be modified …. ...

. … Clause 56(1)(a)(i)(C.1) does not apply to include an amount in income to the extent the amount would not be subject to income taxation in the U.S. if the Taxpayer were resident in the U.S. … You have indicated that [the] return of the investment in contract would be excluded from income for U.S. income tax purposes. Based on this…the amount of the Withdrawal would not be included in computing the Taxpayer’s income …. … [T]he same [would apply] if the Withdrawal took place in a year subsequent to the Taxation Year in which the Deemed Distribution took place … [or] if the Taxpayer was a U.S. citizen, rather than a green card holder, who renounced this US citizenship after becoming a tax resident in Canada … [subject to] subparagraph 4(a) of Article XXIV of the Convention …. ...