Search - 屯门 安南都护府

. … In a 2005 technical interpretation, [CRA] took the position that a service provider whose principal business included the maintenance of account records did not satisfy the test because "[the service provider's] services do not include time spent on the custody of securities, the collection and remittance of income, and the right to buy and sell on [its] own judgment on behalf of some clients without reference to those clients. [F.n. 382 … 2005-0124131E5.] ...

. … In EarthFirst Canada Inc. (Re), [f.n. 103 2009 ABQB 316]… the court confirmed… in Merit Energy. … On the basis of these authorities and the amended CCAA, it appears that any FTS holders' claims that arise pursuant to an indemnity provided by a PBC in an FTS subscription agreement will be treated as equity for CCAA purposes. ...

[fn 54: … 2002-0128955]… In our view, [this] interpretation is incorrect when the transferor already owns shares of the corporation at the time of the transfer because subsection 84(7) would deem the dividend to be payable and, through such prior share ownership, the transferor would clearly be a shareholder of the corporation. … [2006-0183851E5] found that such a deemed dividend may properly be the subject of an election under subsection 83(2), provided that the recipient of the deemed dividend under section 84.1 owns shares of any class of shares of the capital stock of the payer corporation immediately before the dividend is deemed to be paid or payable. ...

. … [C]onsider a corporation resident in Canada (Canco) that has a 5 percent interest in a general partnership. ... As a result, the FAPI of Forco must be included in the income of the partnership, and 5 percent of such FAPI must be allocated to Canco. … ...

Kandev, "Foreign Affiliate Issues in Troubled Times", International Tax (Wolters Kluwer CCH), No. 112, June 2020, p. 1-- summary under Paragraph 5907(2)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 5907- Subsection 5907(2)- Paragraph 5907(2)(f) Questionable CRA position that forgiveness does not increase surplus (p. 4) 2002-0165195 … provides that the "exempt earnings" or "taxable earnings" would not pick up forgiveness of a commercial debt obligation that did not relate to FAPI and that 5907(2)(/) would not be available, thus resulting in such income not being included in the exempt or taxable surplus of the FA debtor. … [T]his position is questionable given Regulation 5907(2)(f) and the definition of "earnings" in Regulation 5907 and may give rise to double taxation. ...

", Canadian Tax Journal (2021) 69:2, 595- 627-- summary under Subsection 90(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 90- Subsection 90(3) Tertium quid distributions under foreign corporate law (p. 602) Not all foreign affiliate distributions fit neatly into the categories of a dividend or a return of paid-up capital – it is often the case that a distribution is characterized as a return of “paid-in capital” (PIC), e.g., contributed surplus, share premium, or additional PIC. Two-step approach to determining whether QROC election available (p. 603) Since the s. 90(2) election is available only to a resident corporation, the QROC election was also introduced to permit a non-corporate taxpayer, such as an individual or a partnership, to achieve a similar result respecting a distribution that is considered to be a reduction of PUC under the two-step characterization approach (see 2011-0427001C6) – although Canadian corporations can also make the QROC election. ...

EY, "Proposed EIFEL rules", Tax Alert 2022 No. 13, 9 March 2022-- summary under Paragraph (a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18.2- Subsection 18.2(1)- Adjusted Taxable Income- B- Paragraph (a) Interest that is expressly permitted to be capitalized to resource pools is not added back (p. 4) Variable B adds back a number of amounts so as to reverse [their] impact on the taxpayer’s ATI …. ... Problems may also arise with respect to the manner in which the add-backs address components of other-year losses deducted in the current year — in particular, in that they may not properly address losses attributable to CCA. ...

. … Once fully vested, these units or SARs grant the executive a right to receive payment equal to the difference between the share's fair market value and its original price at the plan's inception. ... [f.n…. 9422835 …] In other words, once the SAR units become fully vested it would have be determined whether the executive is postponing the exercise of the SARs in order to avoid the immediate tax consequences (i.e., the employment income). ... Alternative application of constructive receipt (“CR”) at time of vesting (p. 1657) [I]n the context of the recognition of employment income, the Canadian jurisprudence has yet to develop guidance with respect to the doctrine of CR …[T]he CRA addressed its position with respect to CR in the context of SDAs in… 1999-0007315 …. ...

. … Without a Factual PE, no income is allocated to a province. This is true for each of the "agreeing" provinces… Consequently, this income is taxable in Canada, but not earned in a province. ... [under s. 120(1).] … In our view, it's the right answer. Consider a situation where the taxpayer worked for over 182 days in Canada but did not exceed that threshold in any one province. ... Same result for non-resident corporations with only Services PE (pp. 2-3) We believe the same is true for corporations in the general sense (excluding banks, airlines, etc. … Ontario was not an "agreeing province" for corporate tax until 2009, and Alberta still is not. ...

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…. ...