Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

Our Comments Items a) & b)- Wage Subsidies & Incentives It is our understanding that, in most cases, wage subsidies are paid directly to the employer. ... In particular, subparagraphs 12(1)(x)(ii) through (iv) would bring into income amounts received by a taxpayer from a government that “... can reasonably be considered to have been received (iii) as an inducement, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, deduction from tax, allowance or any other form of inducement, or (iv) as a refund, reimbursement, contribution or allowance or as assistance, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, deduction from tax, allowance or any other form of assistance, in respect of (A) an amount included in, or deducted as, the cost of property, or (B) an outlay or expense”. ...

Background – Part XII.6 Tax Part XII.6 of the Act levies a tax on issuers of flow-through shares that use the one year look-back rule for flow-through shares under subsection 66(12.66) (the “Look-Back Rule”). ... The relevant elements of the above formula would therefore be: A= $5M C= $3M E= 2% F= nil Applying these elements to the above simplified formula would result in the following computation: ($5M- $3M) X (0.02/12 + 0/10) = $3, 333.33 As a result, the PBC’s Part XII.6 tax payable for each month during the period of February 2020 to June 2020 would be $3,333. ... For example, for July 2020, the elements to the above simplified formula would be as follows: A= $5M C= $5M E= 1% F=nil Applying these elements to the above simplified formula would result in the following computation: ($5M- $5M) X (0.01/12 + 0/10) = $0 As a result, the PBC would not have any Part XII.6 tax payable in respect of its $5M renunciation for any month after June, 2020. ...

(notre soulignement) Au paragraphe 3 du IT-145R (Consolidé), on donne une définition de l'expression "fabrication": Il importe donc d'essayer de définir " fabriquer " et " transformer " dans leur acception quotidienne. " Fabriquer " et " transformer " ne se prêtent pas à une définition simple, d'application générale. ... Société A a-t-elle droit à la méthode d'achèvement des travaux (¶ 12 du IT-92R2)? ...

Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 95 B = lesser of i) 5 (95- 100) and ii) 25 = 5 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 100 (95 + 5) Therefore the allowable loss for year 1 is 0 (100- 100) Year 2 Since the shares are not mtm property and there has been no disposition of the shares there is no loss otherwise determined to which 112(3) or (5.2) could apply. ... Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 95 B = lesser of i) 5 (95- 100) and ii) 25 = 5 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 100 (95 + 5) Therefore the allowable loss for year 1 is 0 (100- 100) Year 2 Since the shares are not mtm property and there has been no disposition of the shares there is no loss otherwise determined to which 112(4) or (5.2) could apply. ... Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 50 B = lesser of i) 50 (50- 100) and ii) 33 = 33 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 83 (50 + 33) Therefore the allowable loss for year 3 is 17 (83- 100) ...

Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 95 B = lesser of i) 5 (95- 100) and ii) 25 = 5 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 100 (95 + 5) Therefore the allowable loss for year 1 is 0 (100- 100) Year 2 Since the shares are not mtm property and there has been no disposition of the shares there is no loss otherwise determined to which 112(3) or (5.2) could apply. ... Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 95 B = lesser of i) 5 (95- 100) and ii) 25 = 5 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 100 (95 + 5) Therefore the allowable loss for year 1 is 0 (100- 100) Year 2 Since the shares are not mtm property and there has been no disposition of the shares there is no loss otherwise determined to which 112(4) or (5.2) could apply. ... Application of 112(5.2) Deemed proceeds = A + B- (C- D) A = 50 B = lesser of i) 50 (50- 100) and ii) 33 = 33 C = 0 D=0 therefore deemed proceeds are 83 (50 + 33) Therefore the allowable loss for year 3 is 17 (83- 100) ...

Case #3 The facts are identical to those in Case # 2 except that the two shareholders are dealing with each other at non-arm's length. ... Case # 2 A clear nexus between Mr. E, a minority shareholder who has a 40% interest in Opco2, and potential dividend income from Opco2 can be demonstrated. ... Case # 3 Our response remains the same as that for Case # 2 above. The fact that Mr. ...

Olympia Floor & Wall Tile [70 DTC 6085] The Taxpayer is of the view that in Olympia Floor & Wall Tile, the Exchequer Court of Canada held that the fact that an amount may be deductible under one provision of the Act does not mean that it may not also be deductible under another provision of the Act. ... Where the provision at issue is clear and unambiguous, its terms must simply be applied: Although, section 67.1 of the Act may have had its genesis in the 1963 Budget speech, which discussed the perceived abuse of "expense account living", subsection 67.1(1) uses the words "... an amount paid or payable in respect of the human consumption of food or beverages or the enjoyment of entertainment... ... Olympia Floor & Wall Tile [70 DTC 6085] The Taxpayer is of the view that even though an expense may fall under one provision of the Act, it does not render the expenses inadmissible for a different purpose under another provision of the Act. ...

The term “restrictive covenant” is defined in subsection 56.4(1) of the Act as “… an agreement entered into, an undertaking made, or a waiver of an advantage or right by the taxpayer, whether legally enforceable or not, that affects, or is intended to affect, in any way whatever, the acquisition or provision of property or services by the taxpayer or by another taxpayer that does not deal at arm’s length with the taxpayer ….”. ... After considering the issue, XXXXXXXXXX, we concluded the following: “… the fact that a non-competition agreement may include both a non-competition and a confidentiality clause would not in and of itself disqualify the entire non-competition agreement for the purposes of the exceptions in subsection 56.4(3) or 56.4(7).” ... XXXXXXXXXX Issue 2 – Subsection 56.4(7) Given the result of our analysis for Issue 1, we will focus our discussion in this part on whether the exception in subsection 56.4(7) applies to the single RC that is comprised of the NCC and NSC. ...

Guglich Business Enquiries (613) 957-2102 Attention: Henry Zerbin 983180 Tax Treatment of Flood Assistance Payments This is in response to your request of December 2, 1998, for our views regarding the tax treatment of flood assistance payments received in the following situations: Situation # 1 A shareholder leases a portion of his land to his corporation which operates a lodge business thereon. ... Situation # 2 A client inquires whether the adjusted cost base of the property can be reduced, instead of including the amount of the assistance in income, where flood assistance is received in the form of loan payments regarding the purchase of real property. ...

August 29, 2014 Individual Returns and Payments HEADQUARTERS Processing Directorate Income Tax Rulings Assessment and Benefit Services Branch Directorate Room 816, Tower C Lori Merrigan Vanier Towers (613) 957-9229 Ottawa ON K1A 0L5 Attention: Sheila Barnard 2014-053425 Indian Taxation – Specific Claim Payments This is in response to your correspondence of June 2, 2014, asking for our comments with respect to the tax treatment of monies paid by the XXXXXXXXXX ("First Nation") as a per-capita distribution ("PCD") to its members, from monies received as Specific Claim payments to the First Nation. ... Trusts – General Taxation In some cases, these initial PCDs, or additional distributions may be paid from a trust. ...