Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Focus instead on autonomy of decision-making (p. 261) Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that beneficial ownership — which can be a key issue in the context of the domestic antiavoidance rules as well as the antiabuse principle of article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — should be tested, considering the nature and the functions of the direct recipient of income concerning its ability to make autonomous decisions regarding and exercise power over the funds. Therefore, in this case, understanding beneficial ownership requires considering the significant lack of operations as part of the nature of a pure holding company rather than a detrimental indicator, as it would be in the context of an operating company. … [T]he Supreme Court held that the right to claim tax treaty relief should not be limited simply because a pure holding company is wholly owned by a sole shareholder based in another country…. ...

. … The CRA's position is that the real estate corporation should limit its proportion of activities with respect to the real estate property to its proportion of co-ownership of the property. ... The parties would then lease the real estate property to a leasing corporation which would be responsible for leasing the property to various tenants. … Another common issue arises where a real estate corporation acquires a real estate property on which a hotel or similar business operates. In these cases, there may be a concern that the real estate corporation is performing activities in relation to the property that are not those activities listed in clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A). … [Based on] IT-73R6…[i]n the context of clause 149(1)(o.2)(ii)(A), it could thus be argued that a real estate corporation that acquires a property on which a hotel or similar business is being operated is providing services in relation to that property and is not be holding, maintaining, improving, leasing or managing the property. ...

Then, section 247(2.1)(b) would adjust the interest … for all relevant purposes Facts of Example 2 in Finance Notes (p. 703) Example 2 considers the interaction between sections 247 and 17 ITA with a scenario in which a corporation resident in Canada has a C $100 loan receivable from a non-arm’s-length non-resident corporation that is not a controlled foreign affiliate of the Canadian corporation. ... Anomalous application of s. 247(2.1) where arm’s length purchase price by Canco exceeds the property’s FMV (p.704) Consider a Canadian corporation that acquires property from a foreign parent at the cost of C $100 when its FMV within the meaning of section 69(1) ITA is C $95, and its arm’s-length price within the meaning of section 247 is only C $90. … And what are results if the FMV is C $100 but the arm’s-length price is C $105? ... When the third step in section 247(2.1) is applied, the C $105 price is subject to section 69(1), which would seem to reduce the price for tax purposes to C $100 — which is not the true arm’s-length price. ...

PL 111-152 § 1402, 03/30/2010.] …The tax is calculated as 3.8% of a U.S. person's net investment income [Note 4: IRC § 1411(a)(1)] to the extent the person's modified adjusted gross income is above the following thresholds [not reproduced].... ... [Note 38: ITA subsection 126(7) "non-business income tax" – paragraph (d).] ... [Note 49: Meyer, 2004 DTC 2393 (T.C.C. – Informal Procedure)] Furthermore, where a U.S. citizen is taxable but an NRA would not be on the same type of income, Canada is not required to provide an FTC. ...

On the liquidation of CFA 2, CFA 2's shares in CFA 3 are deemed to be disposed of for proceeds equal to $200 (paragraph 88(3)(1)). without a subsection 88(3.3) election, Canco 1 would realize a gain of $100 – proceeds of $200 less ACB of $100 (paragraph 88(3)(d)). ... This would fall afoul of paragraph 88(3.4)(b) and cause Canco 1 to realize a gain of $99 (proceeds of $200 – ACB of $101) rather than the desired deferral. ...

[fn 115: … 9703535…] Accordingly, no deduction will be available under paragraph 113(l)(b) in respect of distributions paid out of the LLC's taxable surplus. ... [fn 116: … 9703535…9821495… 2013-0480321C6 [above]…] …[A] timing issue remains in this latter context if the LLC is a controlled foreign affiliate and is not able to distribute all of its income each year, as the applicable share of the LLC's FAPI will be required to be included in the member's income in the taxation year in which it is received, without an offsetting deduction for FAT. ...

LLLP and LLP characteristics basically reflect those of an LP, except that the general LLLP or LLP partner also has limited liability exposure: the liability of a general partner and of a limited partner involved in the business's control is limited to the amount of the partner's capital investment in the partnership – unless the liability resulted from the partner's malfeasance. A Florida LP can become an LLLP simply be filing a short form and paying a small fee. … An LLLP and LLP offer liability protection similar to that of a traditional limited partnership that uses a shell corporation to hold a nominal general partnership interest. ...

Govindadeva Bernier, Tim Scholz, "Income Sprinkling Using Private Corporations", Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (with thanks to “Finance Canada officials for their helpful technical discussions”), 8 March 2018-- summary under Paragraph (b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 120.4- Subsection 120.4(1)- Reasonable Return- Paragraph (b) Preferred scenario assumes that all spouses aged over 24 are earning a reasonable return (pp. 1-2) The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) … computed possible revenue outcomes for the government based on three different scenarios. ... This is our preferred scenario. … ...