Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

Canada, 2018 FCA 121-- summary under Subsection 248(28) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(28) potential for double taxation under the ITA of NAL transactions The taxpayer, a Canadian exploration company, unsuccessfully argued that it was not subject to Part XII.6 tax on Canadian exploration expenses (“CEE”) that it had purported to renounce under the look-back rule- but which were now admittedly not eligible for look back because the flow-through share investors were non-arm’s length – because the reference in Part XII.6 to CEE that it “purported” to renounce under the rule referred only to expenses which had been validly rather than invalidly renounced under the look-back rule. ...

Regarding the Minister's argument that Article 13 was only included "for greater certainty," Sharlow J.A. stated: The OECD model conventions, including the Canada-Austria Income Tax Convention, generally have two purposes – the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. ...

. … Grenon RRSP was obligated to file a return under Part I reporting taxable income. ...

In my view, the issue is not new …. However, even if it were a new issue, I am satisfied there is a sufficient basis in the record to resolve the issue and we have a duty to do so to ensure justice is done. ...

(Noël, J.A. also noted (at para. 69) that the " the same terminal loss would have been realized if the limited partners, rather than proceeding with the transactions in issue, had simply dissolved the partnership and distributed the partnership assets to the partners. ...

. … Because each taxpayer is assessed (or reassessed) separately, this can result in inconsistent assessments (Peterson v. ...

. … The second legal error flows from the Tax Court’s concern with tax avoidance…[namely] the “sole purpose of the borrowed funds [was] to facilitate an interest free loan to Wendy’s while creating an interest deduction for the Appellant”. ...

Moreover, s. 164(3), which provided for the payment of interest on amounts that are refunded, repaid or applied to another liability of a taxpayer, applied to the Overpayment in relation to the 1995 taxation year – and the taxpayer’s argument implied that for this purpose as well, the day of payment was on June 10, 1995 rather than in February 2000. ...

. … [A] factor that does not include a legally enforceable right and ability to effect a change to the board of directors or its powers, or to exercise influence over the shareholder or shareholders who have that right and ability, ought not to be considered as having the potential to establish de facto control. ...

. … Also paragraph 191.1(2)(c) of the ETA is a condition that, if satisfied, will result in certain consequences under the ETA. ...