Search - 哈尔滨到北京 公里数

The Queen, 2017 TCC 73 (Informal Procedure)-- summary under Scientific Research & Experimental Development Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Scientific Research & Experimental Development solving narrowly-cast production engineering problems was not SR&ED The taxpayer was a corporation that improved customer’s equipment by increasing their lifespan, improving their security mechanisms or by standardizing them in order to produce economies of scale. In 2012, it entered into four separate contracts with four customers to provide them with specific solutions within the scope of this services business, and treated $182,483 of the expenditures which in incurred in the course of performing this customer-specific work as SR & ED expenditures. Respecting the first project undertaken for an alcohol products company, Jorré J stated (at paras 50, 58, and 62-63, TaxInterpretations translation): … [T]he purpose of the project was to make the palletizers and depalletizers [of beverage bottles] conform to current security standards and to eliminate the risk of the lifting platform falling when an operator or mechanic was underneath. … … [T]here is nothing in the evidence that suggests that palletizers and depalletizers meeting the required safety standards do not already exist or that there is an improvement over what already existed. … … Difficulties by themselves are not sufficient for their resolution to become experimental development. ...

G E Financial Investments v.The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, [2021] UKFTT 0210 (Tax Chamber), ultimately aff'd [2024] EWCA Civ 797-- summary under Article 4 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 4 a deemed US resident was not a US treaty resident A US company (“GEFI Inc.”) and UK company (“GEFI”) in the GE group formed a Delaware LP (“LP”) with GEFI Inc. as the 1% general partner and GEFI as the 99% limited partner. ... In my judgment, this is the correct approach as it takes into account the common feature or similarity of domicile, residence, citizenship etc, in the context of the Convention, ie that they are all criteria providing, in addition to the imposition of a worldwide liability to tax, a “ connection ” or “ attachment ” of a person to the contracting state concerned. Such an interpretation is consistent with Widrig … and Vogel … and Crown Forest which, as [HMRC counsel] submits, when properly understood in context is authority for the proposition that full or worldwide taxation is a necessary feature of the connecting criterion but is not sufficient of itself. ...