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

. … Folio S1-F1-C1 … states that, notwithstanding several exceptions, “eligible medical expenses are not restricted to those paid in Canada or for medical services provided in Canada”. Whether ‘all or substantially all’ of the premiums paid under the … plan relate to medical expenses that are eligible for the …METC … is a question of fact and can only be determined by the insurer of the plan. ...

If this benefit is provided to the incorporated employee in the incorporated employee’s capacity as an employee … the cost of the benefit comprises the personal use portion of the automobile lease costs. Consequently, these expenses would be deductible in computing the income of the PSB corporation by virtue of subparagraph 18(1)(p)(ii) to the extent that such leasing costs would otherwise be deductible if the corporation's income were from a business other than a PSB. … If this benefit is provided to the incorporated employee in the incorporated employee’s capacity as a shareholder, the cost of the benefit is not deductible in computing the income of the PSB corporation … since it would not, if the corporation's income were from a business other than a PSB, be deductible in computing its income. ... Respecting CCA claims, CRA stated: [A] capital cost allowance amount is not the cost of a benefit …[and] is not deductible in computing the income of a PSB corporation under subparagraph 18(1)(p)(ii). … However … capital cost allowance may be deducted in computing the income of the PSB corporation by virtue of subparagraph 18(1)(p)(iii) where such an amount would otherwise have been deductible by virtue of paragraphs 8(1)(f) and 8(1)(j)(ii), having regard to subsections 8(4), 8(10) and 8(13) …. ...

Whether a specific expense is a mandatory computer service fee is a question of fact …. In general … fees paid for services rendered by the computer department are allowable fees if they are mandatory fees. ...

In general, the courts have preferred to tax sources that are enumerated and/or provided for under a specific provision of the Act (see Schwartz … and Fries …). ...

CRA responded: Subsection 116(5) … imposes a tax liability on a purchaser who acquires any “taxable Canadian property” from a non-resident person. Paragraph 98(1)(c) … does not deem the partnership interest to be disposed to a purchaser. ... Accordingly … subsection 116(5) … will not apply to a cessation of a partnership subject to paragraph 98(1)(c)…. ...

In rejecting an argument that Bco was not excluded from being an "eligible production corporation" by virtue of being a corporation indirectly controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province, because Her Majesty in right of a province is not a taxpayer for the purposes of the Act and does not have taxable income, CCRA stated: … Braithwaite, 70 DTC 6001 … stated: “Her Majesty is just as capable … of being a "person taxable" as is an ordinary person … as is evidenced by the fact that there are various federal statutes that do impose direct and indirect taxes on Her Majesty in one way or another.” … We believe that Her Majesty in right of a province is a person and a taxpayer for the purposes of the Act. … Furthermore, we are of the view that the exemption from tax under Part I of the Act referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition of "eligible production corporation" … refers not only to persons whose taxable income is exempt because of section 149 but also to persons whose taxable income is exempt because of, inter alia, the immunity from tax enjoyed by certain persons such as Her Majesty in right of a province. ...

10 June 2009 External T.I. 2009-0308031E5 F- Admissibilité partagée de la PFCE-- summary under Paragraph (f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 122.6- Eligible Individual- Paragraph (f) factors in Reg. 6302 applied to determine which parent has primary care responsibility – if indeterminate, CRA applies its shared eligibility policy The father and mother, who are separated, have not remarried and remain in the same neighbourhood in their respective residences, have joint custody of a child (and “eligible dependant”), living alternately with each other (either four days with one and three days with the other, or one week with one, and one week with the other), with the mother denied the CCTB for a period of six months per year under CRA’s CCTB shared eligibility policy. ... CRA stated: … Cabot … [1998] 4 C.T.C. 289 established that the presumption in paragraph (f) is rebuttable, not only in the circumstances set out in [Reg.] 6301(1)… but also in light of the criteria listed in [Reg.[6302 of the Regulations. … Consequently, it is necessary to determine which parent, at the beginning of each month, primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant. … To address the difficulty of determining the "eligible individual" in a shared custody situation for equivalent periods of time, the Agency has developed a CCTB shared eligibility policy that recognizes that there may be, in these specific situations, two eligible individuals for the same child. ... This rotation will continue until the situation changes or until the child turns 18 years of age. … In light of the foregoing and the factors to be considered under section 6302 of the Regulations, if the facts of the Particular Situation support the conclusion that the mother is the person who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her child in a year, she potentially will qualify as the eligible individual throughout that year. ...

., $673,700/$2,873,695 * $131,400 = $30,805), multiplied by the 3X dividend refund rate (to produce $92,415) multiplied in turn by the ratio of the s. 84(3) dividend received (of $529,785) to the total dividends received by Holdco (of $673,700). ...

. … [W]e do not know whether the compensation paid for the Internet fees represents an allowance or a reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. … If it is … a reimbursement of actual expenses … [and] the facts show that this Internet access is essential for the employees to perform their employment duties, we are of the view that it is unlikely that a significant taxable benefit will result to the employees from the reimbursement of the Internet and modem fees. In such a case, the reimbursement would not be included in employment income. … [S]upplies [under s. 8(1)(i)](iii)] would not include the cost of tools or equipment or amounts paid for a cell phone connection or communication licence fee. ...

., CEE (or CDE) incurred in Year 2 could be renounced effective December 31 of Year 1 and $900 of CEE (or CDE) incurred in Year 3 could be renounced effective December 31 of Year 2, CRA went on to confirm its position in 9531266 that: [T]he exercise of a right to purchase a flow-through share triggers a new flow-through share agreement and … a new "agreement in writing" is not required …. As well … the period referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "flow-through share" in subsection 66(15) begins on the date of exercise of the right to purchase a flow-through share and ends 24 months after the end of the month that includes that date, unless the original written agreement relating to flow-through shares and share purchase rights (the "original agreement") provides for a shorter period. ...