Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

The shareholder group consisted of (i) two unrelated individuals (Souty, and Foix – who held his shares through a passive portfolio company (“Virtuose”),) (ii) trusts for the two respective families (the Souty and Foix Trusts) and (iii) after giving effect to intricate preliminary transactions, two holding companies for Souty and Foix through which they held a portion of their shares of W4N (in the case of “Souty Holdco”) or of Virtuose (in the case of “Foix Holdco”). ... W4N selling its business assets to EMC for notes, thereby realizing a s. 14(1) eligible capital amount and an addition to its capital dividend account of $22 million, which was declared as a capital dividend to Souty Holdco and Virtuose – and then paid through a distribution of $22 million in notes immediately after step 5. ... EMC either agreed or proposed that W4N's shareholders withdraw W4N's excess cash fairly early in the discussions and negotiations. … I find that it was Messrs. ...

The Queen, 99 DTC 157 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 56(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 56- Subsection 56(2) S.56(2) did not apply to an arrangement under which fees earned by companies as a result of a tax plan concocted by tax partners at Coopers & Lybrand were paid as dividends to family members or family trusts in respect of partners of the firm. ...

The Queen, 2019 TCC 132-- summary under Subsection 96(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(2) s. 96(2) reinforced application of s. 102(2) Pizzitelli J found that, in light of ss. 96(2) and 102(2), partnership members of a limited partnership (“AIGLP”) were to be treated as members of AIGLP for s. 103(1.1) purposes – as were the trust members of AIGLP. ...

Given that there were over 150 unitholders in each Income Fund holding a qualifying block of units, whether the units of the Income Funds qualified (under Reg. 4900(1)(d)) as units of mutual fund trusts turned principally on whether there had been a “lawful distribution in a province to the public of units of the trust and a prospectus … was not, under the laws of the province, required to be filed in respect of the distribution” (Reg. 4801(a)(i)(A)). ... In this regard, Smith J found (at para. 266) that the subscribing “minors were not legally competent to sign the Risk Acknowledgement form” required to be given by them and that “the Alberta and BC securities commission intended that this document would only be signed by adult subscribers who had legal capacity,” that the minors’ subscriptions “were … unlawful” (para. 291) and (regarding over 25 of the subscriptions by adult Investors) the Minister’s unrebutted “assumption that these adults did not pay for their own units was sufficient to indicate that they had not purchased the units as principal for their own account” (para. 313). ... Anything less than that would not be “a lawful distribution” since it would be contrary to the precise terms of the OM. … The Income Funds did not qualify as a “mutual fund trust” because they failed to satisfy the prescribed condition that there be “a lawful distribution …to the public of units” under the laws of the provinces of Alberta and BC to not fewer than 160 investors as required by the OM. ...

La Reine, 2007 DTC 1619, 2007 TCC 338 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Subsection 37(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 37- Subsection 37(1) Archambault J. found that a purported partnership of which the taxpayer was a purported member was not carrying on any business (as it was created solely to transfer R & D tax deductions to investors) so that the taxpayer was not entitled to any deductions under s. 37 in respect of alleged expenditures of the partnership. ...

The Queen, 2007 DTC 996, 2007 TCC 289, aff'd 2008 DTC 6230, 2008 FCA 92-- summary under Income-Producing Purpose Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(1)- Paragraph 18(1)(a)- Income-Producing Purpose A fee paid by the taxpayer to Ernst & Young LLP for advice in connection with strategizing as to how to monetize his shares through a forward exchange contract were not incurred to assist him in gaining or producing income from the shares and, therefore, were not deductible. ...

The Queen, 95 DTC 821, [1995] 1 CTC 2524 (TCC)-- summary under Subsection 152(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 152- Subsection 152(5) Before going on to find that two reassessments issued following the normal reassessment period were void, Mogan TCJ. stated (at p. 826): "... subsection 152(5) does not by itself authorize the Minister to make a reassessment with respect to a particular taxation year. ...

Before noting that a technical interpretation of the Department of National Revenue contained an interpretation of s.17(3) which he had rejected, Bowman A.C.J. stated (at p. 299): "... departmental practice may be of assistance in resolving a doubt in favour of a taxpayer. ...

The Queen, 2010 DTC 5076 [at 6816], 2009 FCA 48-- summary under Subsection 37(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 37- Subsection 37(2) The "research" the taxpayer contracted for with a Brazilian firm did not qualify as scientific research & experimental development under s. 248(1): it was not scientifically noteworthy, considering such factors as the lack of a novel scientific question, and the lack of rigour in the hypotheses, experiments, and records. ...

McArthur TCJ. stated (at p 1760): "... Appellants' description of the properties as capital is a statement of law and not fact. ...