Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

CRA noted that ATI is determined by the formula A + B – C, and A is determined by the formula D – E. with variable D in general terms referring to the taxpayer’s taxable income for the year determined without regard to s. 18.2(2). ...

26 June 2001 External T.I. 2001-0068285 F- DATE DE DISPOSITION ACTIONS EN BOURSE-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Disposition- Paragraph (a) disposition date on a stock exchange is the settlement date, being the due date for the proceeds In finding that a taxpayer may not uses the trade date rather than the settlement date as the date of disposition of publicly traded shares, CCRA stated: A "disposition", as defined … [to] include … "any transaction or event entitling a taxpayer to proceeds of disposition of the property". Consequently … there is no disposition before the vendor is entitled to the proceeds of disposition, i.e. on the settlement date. ...

CRA responded: [W]here a person who is both a shareholder and an employee of a corporation receives a benefit from that corporation that is not available to other employees, … [CRA] generally considers that there is a presumption that the person has received that benefit as a shareholder. … CCA … could not be claimed for a capital expenditure related to a shareholder benefit because the property in question was not acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income …. ...

22 September 2010 External T.I. 2010-0373041E5 F- Résidence principale-- summary under Paragraph (e) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 54- Principal Residence- Paragraph (e) holding land within ½ hectare area under separate title does not preclude exemption applying to such adjacent land The correspondent sold two pieces of land adjacent to the land on which the individual’s principal residence was located to an arm’s length purchaser that, together with the retained land, totaled less than one-half hectare. CRA stated: Fourt … held … that the mere fact of holding separate title to land adjacent to the title to the land subjacent to the housing unit does not preclude the entire area not exceeding one-half hectare from qualifying for the principal residence exemption to the extent that the facts demonstrate that the immediately contiguous land may reasonably be regarded as contributing to the use and enjoyment of the housing unit as a residence. If that is your case, you may have disposed of only part of a property that qualifies as your principal residence and you may be able to designate the land as your principal residence …. ...

CRA responded: … $1,000 … would be a function of the FMV of the net assets of Bco. Since Bco would have no liabilities at that time, it appears to us that the total FMV of Bco's assets would also be $1,000 immediately before the particular time. … [A] method of determining the FMV of property of a particular prescribed class based on objective data such as an independent appraisal report, a price list, a sales transaction of similar property, etc., would generally be an acceptable method. … [I]n this case the amounts established by the independent appraiser could be used as a basis for allocating the $1,000 to the various assets of Bco immediately prior to the time of the acquisition of control. ...

CRA stated: According to paragraph 6 of … IT-293R, a debt or obligation is settled or extinguished when the obligation to pay ceases to exist, and payment, cancellation, set-off, substitution of debtors and release are among the means of settlement. … Furthermore … Richer indicat[ed] that "in the context of section 80, the word 'settle' connotes a final and legally binding resolution that terminates or reduces the debtor’s obligations” …. ...

After noting that the case was not appealed because in the result it was favourable and it was only an informal procedure case, CRA then summarized the facts, stating that the Oka shareholders engaged in "three avoidance transactions" (TaxInterpretations translation) for appropriating the surplus of Oka which, in December 2004, had already "... and was in the course of liquidating the remainder of its assets:" First, on March 1, 2005, there was an internal rollover of their shares in the capital stock of Oka in order to crystallize in the adjusted cost base ("ACB") of new shares, the excess of the fair market value ("FMV") of the transferred shares over their ACB, thereby realizing a capital gain in respect of which the capital gains deduction in section 110.6 was not claimed. The second transaction, effected on March 15, 2005, was to roll those new shares in the capital stock of Oka to a new corporation (9149-7321 Quebec Inc., hereafter « Quebec Inc. ») in exchange for shares of two classes in the capital of Quebec Inc.: the first class of shares having a low PUC and an ACB equal to their FMV (the "1971 FMV Shares") and the second class of shares having a high PUC (which was the purpose of the second transaction) and a high ACB equal to their FMV (the "Stripping Shares"). ... The CRA continues of the view that ITA subsection 84(2) should have applied in this case especially by reason of … MacDonald …. ...

Each is a question of fact …. … Paragraph 3 of IT-459 mentions that although an adventure or concern in the nature of trade is included in the definition of the term "business" in section 248 of the Act, it does not necessarily mean that a taxpayer who is engaged in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade is "carrying on" a business or has "carried on" a business. ...

In finding that the condition in s. 22, that there still be outstanding accounts receivable that were required to be included in computing Amalco’s income in respect of that business, appeared to not be met, CRA stated: The only inclusion in income [of] Amalco … in respect of accounts receivable of Predecessor 1 is under 12(1)(d) and it includes in its income a reserve (there is no presumption that the underlying receivable was included by Amalco in its income). Respecting the requirement that Amalco have carried on the Business, the Directorate stated: [Y]ou express the view that because Amalco sold the assets used in the Businesses … minutes after the amalgamation, it did not “carry on the business” of Predecessor 1, hence the election under section 22 was not valid. … That view might arguably be consistent with … Gillen …. However, the Directorate concluded that the election was satisfied (on the basis that the other conditions of s. 22 were satisfied and the business was continued) stating: Provided there is no disruption in the continued operation of the business … the context and purpose of section 22 are satisfied where a corporation resulting from an amalgamation that is governed by section 87 or its predecessor have included receivables from that business in their income and have used property in carrying on that business. ...

According to … Kieboom …, subsection 75(2) could, however, apply where the shares are not subscribed for consideration equal to their fair market value. There is nothing in the Facts to allow us to conclude that Mother transferred any additional economic interest or additional … value to Trust at the time of the freeze. ...