Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

CRA took the position that the production activity referenced in Reg. 1204(1)(b) “ceased at the wellhead” – and it reassessed to the taxpayer (a participant in the joint venture) to reduce the amount of the taxpayer’s production profits by the expenses of the OLS (effectively treating them as equalling the income from transporting the crude, and then deducting the same amounts as an expense applicable to the transportation profits). CRA in particular relied on the exclusion in Reg. 1204(3)(a) for “income … derived from transporting … petroleum”. ... The OLS had no impact one way or the other on the amount of income realized by the joint venture owners from the sale of the Hibernia crude and did not in and of itself generate any income or loss for the joint venture owners. … …[P]aragraph 1204(3)(a) was intended to ensure that additional income derived from transporting/transmitting crude does not attract the resource allowance. ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 74 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subsection 244(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 244- Subsection 244(5) taxpayer’s testimony that she did not receive a notice of assessment accepted over a CRA affidavit to the contrary Where a taxpayer alleges that she did not receive a notice of assessment, ETA s. 335(6) provides that an affidavit of a CRA official in charge of the appropriate records and stating that “an examination of the records shows that a notice of assessment was mailed … to a person … is evidence of [such] statement….” ...

The Queen, 2018 TCC 74 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Paragraph 303(7)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 303- Subsection 303(7)- Paragraph 303(7)(a) taxpayer's testimony that she had not received a notice of assessment was credible ETA s. 335(6) provides that an affidavit of a CRA official in charge of the appropriate records and stating that “an examination of the records shows that a notice of assessment was mailed … to a person … is evidence of [such] statement….” ...

. … S ilicon Graphics … is met. BWS had de facto control of Vidabode. ...

Once the minimum amount of $100,000 had been reached — no matter how calculated — then amounts received by Mr. ... Brosseau's deal essentially was a minimum plus an override, not unusual, and not unreasonable — but a distinction with a tax difference as I see it. I do not reach this conclusion on the excess $25,072 without some reservation — since I see some merit in the concise argument of counsel for the appellant on the point — that since the first $100,000 did not come from "use or production", why the second $25,072? ...

See summary under s. 9 – capital gain v. profit – real estate. ...

(r.4), partly on the basis of its “Marketing Agreement” with Elavon stating that it would “market” merchant services offered by Elavon – but Lyons J accepted evidence that Zomaron did not carry out such marketing services. ... After having referred (at para. 94) to a statement in the 1989 GST/HST technical paper of Finance that “the services provided by insurance agents, mortgage brokers and investment dealers will be treated as tax-exempt supplies,” she stated (at para. 97) that nonetheless: Parliament intended that the concept of “arranging for” to mean “bringing together parties to a service.”. … Additionally, it … call[s] for the intermediary to have a sufficient amount of involvement to then “cause to occur” or effect the financial service without involvement in every transaction. ... This, I find, is the predominant element of the supply provided by Zomaron to Elavon and First Data. … Even if the supply provided by Zomaron to the Processors involved services of a promotional nature, since these do not represent the predominant element of the supply, paragraph (r.4) has no application …. ...

The King, 2022 TCC 7-- summary under Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 40- Subsection 40(2)- Paragraph 40(2)(g)- Subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) maintaining rental income could be a good s. 40(2)(g)(ii) purpose The appellant, a non-testamentary discretionary trust, made non-interest bearing loans to two companies (“Roseau” and “Spec”) which were owned, directly or indirectly, by its sole trustee and by another family trust – but it had not direct or indirect shareholding in those companies. In finding that s. 40(2)(g)(ii) precluded the recognition of a business investment loss when the two companies became insolvent and were placed into receivership, St-Hilaire J stated (at para. 25, TaxInterpretations translation): Contrary to the circumstances of the Byram case … in this case the appellant trust had no "legitimate expectation of dividend income" since it is not a shareholder of Roseau and Spec or any other company in the group of companies listed in the organizational chart …. Regarding a submission that the loans were made in order to preserve a source of rental income, she stated (at para. 29): I agree with … [Scott] that subparagraph 40(2)(g)(ii) … should not be interpreted more strictly than Parliament intended. ...

CRA asserted that the MAP proceedings did not result in binding agreements between Sifto and CRA and, even if they did, they did not fix the arm’s length transfer price – so that CRA was not only authorized, but was required, by the ITA to issue the post-audit reassessments once in possession of the new audit information. ... To suggest that the MAP agreements simply addressed double taxation of Compass ignores the factual context in which the agreements were reached by the Minister and the IRS through their respective representatives. … …[I]n a letter from the USCA to Compass dated January 25, 2011 … the USCA states: … A mutual agreement has been reached regarding the transfer price of the transaction between Compass and...Sifto…. … This correctly recognizes that the adjustments to income allowed by paragraph (1) of Article IX of the Convention are the result of a transfer price and that it is impossible to agree to the adjustments to the Appellant’s income without also agreeing to the implicit transfer price that yields those adjustments. ...

. … Chopp confirmed… that a benefit may be conferred without any intent or actual knowledge on the part of the shareholder if the circumstances are such that the shareholder ought to have known. … The purchase of policies … for which significant premiums were paid and for which there were several changes to the beneficiaries over several years, is not and cannot be treated as a simple bookkeeping error. ...