Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable"). ...

") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable"). ...

Newbould J. rejected the submission made by the administrators of the pension plan for NNUK made (at para. 130) "that the Nortel transfer pricing arrangements failed to compensate NNUK for the true contributions it was making to the Nortel Group …[and] in particular they … failed to properly compensate NNUK for its restructuring costs and its pension costs. ...

For more detail see under s. 115(1)(b) – and respecting the BVI situs issue, see summary under TA, s. 54(2)(b). ...

. … Until such time as the contemplated transaction closed, it is arguable that Aviva could have carved up its rights to acquire the shares among other persons so that, at closing, it would acquire not more than 20 per cent of the target company. ...

. … [T]he context of the deeming provision suggests that it is intended to operate at the level of computation of income and taxable income, as do paragraphs 96(2.1)(c) and (d), and only after the taxpayer has computed his or her or its income or loss from business and property. ...

Minister of Customs and Excise, [1928] S.C.R. 54 … Duff C.J., when considering the phrase “nursery stock” as used in subs. (4) of s. 19BBB of c. 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 5 Geo. ...

. … Because each taxpayer is assessed (or reassessed) separately, this can result in inconsistent assessments (Peterson v. ...

.): the incorporation of Veracity (which “allowed for the absolute avoidance of B.C. tax, not simply a deferral under s. 85” – para. 42); the transfer of the ALI shares to Veracity (in order to implement the Q-Yes plan; and the adoption of the different year ends. ...

. … The second legal error flows from the Tax Court’s concern with tax avoidance…[namely] the “sole purpose of the borrowed funds [was] to facilitate an interest free loan to Wendy’s while creating an interest deduction for the Appellant”. ...