Search - 屯门 安南都护府

That is what the Tax Court of Canada indicated in … Ekamant … 2009 TCC 408 …. Thus … Corporation A did not become a CCPC at the time of the signing of the purchase offer made by Corporation B since it continued to be controlled by Pubco at that time. ...

A, Holdco A and Trust A sell ½. ½ and ¼, respectively, of their shares of Corporation A on a s. 85(1) rollover basis in exchange for similar-attribute shares of Newco. ...

. … … [I]t cannot be considered … that the amounts payable by Corporation B and/or Corporation C under the second contract could represent consideration for the use of an amount of capital (or a right to the amount of capital). … [In addition t]he contractual relationship between Corporation A and Corporation B, on the one hand, and Corporation A and Corporation C, on the other hand, … does not appear to us to create a lender-borrower relationship between those corporations, so that subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) cannot be applicable. ...

. … … [W]here the transaction is not commercially reasonable, the borrowed money does not meet the test in paragraph 20(1)(c) of being used for the purpose of earning income. ...

Repairs or Running Expense expenditure on Canadian film production can be current expense if it is only of short-term use Is whether an expenditure on a "Canadian film or video production” ("CFVP") is a current expense, or a capital expenditure on depreciable property, determined in accordance with the criteria set out in 9722707, which states: Generally, the cost of preparing a tape will normally be considered a current expenditure where the tape is only of short-term use, either because it is merely of current topical interest or because it is intended to be shown only once (…) In these latter situations, the material is normally retained on the tape for record purposes only. ... CRA responded: The criteria set out in that paragraph may still be used …. … In addition … a likelihood of a particular production generating revenues other than those provided for in the original broadcast contract, for example, from the sale of DVDs, the awarding of contracts for broadcasting on the Internet, on specialty channels or in territories not covered by the original broadcast contract, can also be taken into consideration in determining whether the costs related to a production should be considered as capital expenditures in respect of depreciable property. … [W]here the broadcast contract covers a period of several years, under which the broadcaster has the right to broadcast the production several times during that period, this would be an argument to support that the costs associated with the production provide a lasting benefit to the producer. ...

In addition, the CRA generally considers that the Purpose Tests [in ss. 55(2.1)(b)(i) and (ii)] could apply to a dividend paid by an operating company to its corporate shareholder in order to dispose of surplus assets for the purpose of the purification and subsequent sale of [its] shares … 2017-0724021C6 …. … [T]he payment of the Dividend and the Sale are part of the same series …. ... Consequently, subsection 55(2) should likely apply …. ...

CRA responded: Based on … subsection 96(1), the CRA's practice is to treat a partnership as a person and a taxpayer when calculating income at the partnership level under Division B of Part I …. … [A] partnership would generally be considered a "taxpayer" for the purposes of subsections 51(1), 85.1(1) and 86(1) and would therefore be entitled to rely on the rules contained therein …. ...

CRA responded: Based on … subsection 96(1), the CRA's practice is to treat a partnership as a person and a taxpayer when calculating income at the partnership level under Division B of Part I …. … [A] partnership would generally be considered a "taxpayer" for the purposes of subsections 51(1), 85.1(1) and 86(1) and would therefore be entitled to rely on the rules contained therein …. ...

Nevertheless, since it is clearly established in the collective agreement that travel expenses are to be paid by the employer, it is not possible to invoke the concept of tacit or implicit agreement as invoked in … Moore … and … Betz... [which] determined that travel was implicitly required as part of the taxpayers' employment in order to properly perform their duties and obtain a favourable performance appraisal. … ...

In this regard we cite … MDS Health … and … Haro Pacific …. ...