Search - 微信撤回和删除的区别 官方

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2023 QCCQ 4688-- summary under Subsection 18(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(3.1) s. 18(3.1) equivalent prorated between the construction of golf course buildings and work on the golf course The taxpayer, during the taxation years at issue, suspended the operation of its golf course to backfill two artificial lakes in its driving range and to replace its clubhouse and garage – as well as to partially construct (but never complete) a mini-golf course. ... After referring to s. 135.4, Bourgeois JCQ stated (at paras. 54, 57-58, 60, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he wording of this section cannot apply to work done on the driving range, golf course maintenance or the various tasks involved in building a mini-golf course, since they can in no way be equated with a "building or the land subjacent to the building, or the contiguous land necessary for the use of the building or a parking area, driveway, yard, garden", etc. … [T]he Court, using its judicial power, exercised reasonably, determines that 50% of the costs of insurance, interest and bank charges, long-term interest, business taxes, licences, consulting fees, property taxes, utilities and telephone are deductible. … [Thus] only the 50% of the costs related to those expenses during the construction period of the clubhouse and garage should be subject to the denial under TA section 135.4.... ...

., 2015 QCCA 838, aff'd 2016 SCC 55-- summary under Foreign Accrual Property Income Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 95- Subsection 95(1)- Foreign Accrual Property Income FAPI from loan by CFA to Canco The taxpayer implemented a plan, to neutralize the effect of FX fluctuations on its investment in a U.S. sub, that overlooked FAPI considerations – so that interest on a loan made by the sub back to Canada was included in the taxpayer's income. ... See summary under General Concepts – Rectification. ...

. … The Amount was paid as a lump sum as an additional reward to Mr Blank for the services he had performed for the Glencore Group. … The IPPA 2005 also recorded that Mr Blank had no interest whatsoever in the GS and did not acquire any right in or title to any assets, funds or property of GI, Glencore AG or any other subsidiary. … [A] GS granted no more than a claim to a cumulative portion of the balance sheet profit, and that the claim was granted not upon the issue or allocation of the GS to the employee but upon restitution of the GS at the time the employment ceased. … The fact that the Amount was paid after the termination of the contract of service, by a person other than the employer (here, GI) and separately to ordinary wages, salary or bonuses, does not detract from its characterisation as income if the payment is, as here, a recognised incident of the employment. ...

Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, [2017] FCAFC 62-- summary under Subsection 247(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 247- New- Subsection 247(2) cross-border loan made on arm’s length terms would have benefited from a parent guarantee or other security The U.S. subsidiary (“CFC”) of the taxpayer (“CAHPL” – which was an Australian subsidiary in the Chevron multinational group) borrowed in the U.S. commercial paper market at a borrowing cost of about 1.2% with the benefit of a guarantee from their ultimate U.S. parent, and on-lent U.S.$2.45 billion of such funds under an unsecured Australian-dollar credit facility to CAHPL at about a 9% interest rate. ... In dealing first with the Division 13 rule, Pagone J (with whom Allsop CJ agreed and whose reasons were adopted by Perram J) stated (at paras 124, 132, 133): … The evidence found by his Honour was that the borrowing by CAHPL would not have been sustainable if obtained from an independent party. … As a standalone company, severed from the financial strength of its ultimate parent and corporate group, CAHPL could not secure a loan for an amount equivalent to $US2.5 billion at the rate obtained by its subsidiary with the backing of the ultimate parent. The evidence...amply supported...the reasonable expectation of a borrowing by CAHPL being supported by security. … An alternative submission made by CAHPL, however, does have some force. ...

. … Such suspicions were not the equivalent of reasonable grounds to believe that BT Céramiques and Bruno had corrupted a CRA official. … Did the CRA possess such grounds before the transfer of the file to the SEP in April 2007? ... The discovery of an invoice for a kitchen counter permitted a belief that lammarone had been placed in a situation of a conflict of interest. … [T]his did not constitute a reasonable ground to permit the CRA to obtain a search warrant or to make accusations of corruption against BT Céramiques or Bruno. … Furthermore, the judge contrasted “auditing” and “investigation” in concluding that there was a contravention of the Jarvis principles. ...

As a result of the above subscriptions and conversion, and a Class A share subdivision, on December 17, 1998 the issued and outstanding share capital of the Corporation was as follows: each of Charles and Philippe: 5,156 Class A shares with a paid-up capital of $723,026; FRSE – 2,412 Class A shares with a paid-up capital of $338,235; and FSTQ- 3,181 Class A shares with a paid-up capital of $446,072. ... Respecting his first finding, he stated (at paras. 64-65, 72-73, TaxInterpretations translation): [T]he evidence … demonstrates that the investment made by the FSTQ in 1998 in Class A common shares as well as the exchange by the FRSE Fund of its share in the Corporation for common shares, were imposed on the Custeau Group by the FSTQ. These transactions did not form part of a tax plan or a long term plan with an objective or goal of crystallizing the capital gains exemption in 2003 and 2004 and reducing capital in 2006. … [T]he capital dilution had already occurred in 1998, at the time of the investment by FSTQ, and is not to be linked to the 2006 capital reduction that produced a tax benefit. … [I]t was financially inconceivable in 1998 for the plaintiffs to one day to be in the position to redeem the investment of FSTQ and FRSE and have enough liquidity to effect a reduction in capital in the neighbourhood of $555,000 each in 2006. ...

The [definition] … by no means speaks to specifically allowing different financial year-ends for Quebec purposes. The BCCA [in Veracity] … conclude[s] that because there is no uniform system of provincial taxation in Canada, then something may well “fall through the cracks. Such reasoning may well apply where provinces ascribe different tax treatment to the same category of revenue …. ...

Convention provided: … United States tax paid under the law of the United States and in accordance with this Convention … in respect of income derived from sources in the United States by …a resident of Australia shall be allowed as a credit against Australian tax payable in respect of the income. … Subject to these general principles, the credit shall be in accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of Australia as that law may be in force from time to time. In concurring with Steward J that the Commissioner’s approach accorded with Art. 22(2), Jackson J stated (at paras. 166, 168-169): The general principle expressed in the first sentence of Art 22(2) is that if a person who is an Australian resident for the purposes of Australian taxation law pays United States tax in respect of income (including a gain) derived from sources in the United States, the Australian government must allow a credit against Australian tax payable in respect of that income. … The requirement that the amount of income be the same in the case of each of the United States tax paid and the Australian tax payable emerges from the syntax of Art 22(2). ...

When he thereupon put the home up for sale, she got him to agree to take it back off the market, and to convey (in December 2010) a ½ co-ownership interest in it to her (with it being understood that as a quid pro quo she would not seek support from him), before the home was put back on the market and sold (in June 2011), resulting in the receipt by her of $144,000. ... Schrager JCA noted (at para. 38) that a “Consent on Ancillary Measures” signed by the parties in 2014 (i) confirmed that they ceased to have a married life together in the fall of 2010 (prior to the deed of assignment) and (ii) further stated: In consideration of the division of movable and immovable property which the parties made in December 2010 and early 2011, the plaintiff waives maintenance for her and all remedies which she could assert against the defendant's estate …. However, he found (a para. 39) that the Consent did not “confirm a written separation agreement previously entered into by the parties … [or] that the deed of assignment constituted such an agreement.” ...

. … With regard to [the 250 unit], the condition to be fulfilled was the construction of [the 265 unit] which was actually carried out, thus having the effect of destroying the contractual link existing between the parties in question. extinguishing it as if it had never existed, without the need for other formalities and by the sole effect of the law. … As for [the model unit], the resolutory condition that had to be fulfilled was to find a new buyer, which materialized on August 21, 2014. In this case also the fulfillment of the condition had, following the application of the law, the effect of destroying the contractual link existing between the parties by extinguishing it as if it had never existed. … In other words, the resolution which operates automatically is valid between the parties even in the absence of the registration of a deed, such as the deed of retrocession, in the office for the registration of real estate rights. But since a deed of retrocession concerns the transmission or extinction of a real immovable right, it must be registered in the land registry and its registration aims, among other things, to publicize to third parties the resolution of the sale. … Since the court has concluded that we are in the presence of a single supply for which the consideration, following the resolution of the sales, was reduced to nil, QSTA section 448 applies, especially since it is not disputed that the requirements of QSTA section 449 are satisfied. ...