Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

After quoting from Nassau Walnut to the effect that where the Minister changes the provision under which the taxpayer’s income is computed and the taxpayer then seeks a deduction under the new provision, that request “ does not raise the spectre of retroactive tax planning,” the Directorate then stated that here: [I]f the CRA has the ability to reassess the Taxpayer’s Part I income tax return for year-end #1 pursuant to subparagraph 152(4)(b)(iii) with respect to its disposition of the … US shares … the Taxpayer’s late-filed designation request could be considered. ...

…Paragraph 96(1)(a)[‘s] … presumption that a partnership is a separate person … does not apply for the purposes of section 152.... Furthermore …., under civil and common law, a partnership … is simply the relationship that exists between persons or partners who carry on a business in common for profit. ... The debt of the partnership is owed by the partners …. ...

29 February 2024 Internal T.I. 2023-0987941I7- Amendments to GAAR and Advance Income Tax Rulings-- summary under Subsection 84(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84- Subsection 84(2) CRA after the GAAR amendments will continue to rule on post-mortem pipelines complying with its published policies, but not on inter vivos surplus stripping by individuals Regarding the status of post-mortem pipeline transactions following the amended GAAR rule, the Directorate stated: The Directorate does not consider the use of a pipeline transaction as a means to preserve the capital gain arising on the death of a shareholder while limiting double taxation on the subsequent distribution of Opco’s assets to be a … [GAAR] abuse …. ...

29 February 2024 Internal T.I. 2023-0987941I7- Amendments to GAAR and Advance Income Tax Rulings-- summary under Subsection 245(4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 245- Subsection 245(4) CRA will continue to issue post-mortem pipeline rulings following the GAAR amendments, but will not rule on surplus stripping by individuals Regarding the status of post-mortem pipeline transactions following the amended GAAR rule, the Directorate stated: The Directorate does not consider the use of a pipeline transaction as a means to preserve the capital gain arising on the death of a shareholder while limiting double taxation on the subsequent distribution of Opco’s assets to be a … [GAAR] abuse …. ...

Respecting Scenario 1, the Directorate stated: Individual A and Individual B form a related group that controls the Employer and are both related to the Employer pursuant to paragraph 251(2)(b) … [so that] the definition of IPP … is satisfied. Respecting Scenario 2: [A]s is apparent from Duha, the determination of whether a person exercises de jure control … must also take into consideration whether any specific or unique limitation on a shareholder’s power to control the election of the board or the board’s power to manage the business and affairs of the company, is manifested in either the constating documents of the corporation, or any unanimous shareholder agreement. Therefore, it is possible that … Individual A or Individual B could … possess de jure control of the Employer and be related to the Employer under subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i). … If Individual A or Individual B possessed a right such that the individual would be deemed to own sufficient shares to control the Employer under paragraph 251(5)(b), then the individual would be related to the Employer under subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i). ...

After noting that “ Redclay [indicated that] ‘ was payable’ requires any GST/HST or PST actually paid pursuant to a vehicle purchase or lease contract to be included in the definition of cost for the purposes of subsection 6(2),” CRA indicated that under ETA s. 153(4)(c) “the GST/HST paid is not reduced because of an exemption [as referred to in s. 6(7)] but is reduced because of a calculation of the GST/HST base,” and the same analysis appeared to apply in the PST provinces. ...

CRA stated: [L]og hauling services performed by a subcontractor from the point of harvest to the point of delivery of the logs to a processing plant (sawmill, pulp mill, plywood mill or other similar log processing location), can constitute an activity of logging for purposes of the definition of qualified property in subsection 127(9) and paragraph 4600(2)(f) … based, inter alia, on Lor-Wes …. ... Finally, a logging truck as described in paragraph 4600(2)(f) … could be considered to have been acquired for use in logging … if it were acquired by a subcontractor with the intention of using it for log hauling services to sawmills, pulp mills or other processing sites on behalf of a number of wood producers who are either farmers who own woodlots or simply other persons who own woodlots for whom income from the sale of wood is not the primary source of income. ...

However, … subsection 246(1) may apply … if it were established that Corporation C conferred the benefit for the personal use of the Aircraft.” ... A’s income … if it was a payment made directly to Mr. A, since Mr. A is not a shareholder of Corporation E. ... A … However, in … Masicotte the judge concluded that subsection 246(1) could apply when a corporation confers a benefit on an indirect shareholder. ...

After referring to s. 123.7 et seq. pf the Quebec Companies Act (providing inter alia that “A company is bound by any deed performed in its interest before its constitution provided it ratifies the deed within 90 days after its constitution”), the Directorate stated: Where there is no legislation similar to the Quebec Companies Act, the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") will normally accept newly incorporated corporation recognizing transactions prior to its incorporation if the … conditions, as set out in … IT-454 [para. 3] are met …. ... B intended, when entering into the agreements with these two parties, to form Company D nor that the latter was the entity that was to deduct the fees. … With respect to the fees paid to Advisor B, the situation is, in our view, somewhat different because, based on the facts you have provided, Corporation D was formed as soon as the mandate was granted to Advisor B. ...

The Directorate stated: [P]aragraph 84.1(1)(a) would not apply to the disposition by each of Brother 1 and Brother 2 of the Class A shares … of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2 … to reduce the ACB in respect of the Class B preferred shares … of Holdco 5 and Holdco 6 received as consideration. … [F]or the purposes of paragraph 84.1(1)(a), the ACB to Brother 1 or Brother 2 … of the Class A shares of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2, as the case may be, would technically be deemed to be approximately $XXXXXXX. This is because there would technically be no amount each of which is an amount determined after 1984 under subparagraph 40(1)(a)(i) in respect of a previous disposition of a Class A share of the capital stock of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2, as the case may be, or to an earlier disposition of a share for which that Class A share of the capital stock of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2 would have been substituted (i.e., a Class A share of the capital stock of Holdco 3 or Holdco 4, as the case may be, or, having regard to subsection 248(5), a Class A share of the capital stock of Holdco 1 or Holdco 2, or any of the 149 Class A shares of the capital stock of Opco referred to in (1)(c) above). … [However] in the event that taxpayers apply for advance rulings in respect of a series of proposed transactions similar to the one described above …[we] would … refer such a case to the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") Committee. ...