Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

For the latter amount to be accepted, it must be reasonable in amount, as to which the Directorate stated: Although the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 53(2)(e) … is $20,000, it is possible that, in similar cases, the Tribunal may award only a relatively small amount compared to this maximum. …[W]e have … asked … for information concerning … human rights at the provincial level. We found that … human rights tribunals in several provinces (some of which had a maximum limit for general damages of less than $20,000 and some of which had no maximum limit at all) generally only awarded amounts below the maximum limit for general damages. ...

Does the application of s. 55(2) to the deemed dividend received by each corporation, which generates an addition to its RDTOH account and, therefore, generates a dividend refund to it and associated Part IV tax on the deemed dividend paid by it to the other corporation, engage the exclusion from s. 55(2) for dividends which are subject to Part IV tax – or does the Part IV tax exclusion not apply so that s. 55(2) applies to the full amount of the deemed dividend received by each corporation? ... Furthermore … in … 943963 Ontario Inc. … the parties … and the Court accepted that there was a given amount subject to Part IV tax by the appellant, the dividend recipient, notwithstanding that a part of the deemed dividend…was deemed to not be a dividend received, by virtue of subsection 55(2). ... The application of subsection 55(2) in that case did not engage any circular calculation. … Moreover, the fact of calculating the RDTOH account at the end of a taxation year of each corporation in such a situation…involving cross redemptions and thus cross dividends, entails circular calculations by them of their respective RDTOH, dividend refunds and Part IV tax. ...

The Directorate stated: # 2007-022925 and # 2004-0107761E5 … stat[ed] that in situations similar to those of Ms. ...

25 February 2002 Internal T.I. 2001-0114167 F- DOMMAGES- DISCRIMINATION-- summary under Paragraph 3(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 3- Paragraph 3(a) awards by human rights tribunals for pain and suffering re wrongful termination often are under $5,000 Regarding what portion a settlement of a claim made under the Canadian Human Rights Act should be treated as compensation for pain and suffering, CCRA indicated that it had not examined the awards pattern of the federal Human Rights Tribunal in this regard, but noted: Although the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 53(2)(e) … is $20,000, it is possible that, in similar cases, the Tribunal may award only a relatively small amount compared to this maximum. …[W]e have … asked … for information concerning … human rights at the provincial level. We found that … human rights tribunals in several provinces (some of which had a maximum limit for general damages of less than $20,000 and some of which had no maximum limit at all) generally only awarded amounts below the maximum limit for general damages. ...

James … 66 DTC 5241 …. Subsection 164(4.1) … does not … prevent a taxpayer from changing the computation of the taxpayer’s loss carryforward from a previous year … consequent on a favourable decision received by another taxpayer. ...

CRA responded: [S]subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iii) does not apply because it … was not given as an inducement to the taxpayer or the trust to undertake certain activities. … Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting … [found] that paragraph 12(1)(x) was not applicable to the amount received by the taxpayer because the taxpayer was not the one who made or incurred the expenditure …. [S]ubparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv) does not apply because it was the trust that incurred or made the Part XII.4 tax expenditure in respect of which the credit was received, not Corporation A. … … This interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(x) … appears to be consistent with … [the] Explanatory Notes ...

CRA stated: The taxpayer's administrative policy for all officers and directors to reimburse the cost of a business class airline ticket in certain circumstances primarily benefits the employer. … [B]usiness class air travel may allow the employer to get better performance from the employee. Consequently … the reimbursement … does not constitute a taxable benefit …. … [T]he reimbursement of the spouse's ticket is made primarily for the benefit of the employee and … the latter derives an economic advantage from it. ... Thus … the reimbursement … is a benefit to be included in the employee's income under paragraph 6(1)(a). ...

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. ...

In finding that the penalty could qualify as a “child care expense,” the Directorate stated: [T]he expression “expense incurred … for the purpose of providing … for an eligible child … child care services …” is sufficiently flexible to include contract termination fees where such fees were provided for in the initial agreement between an individual and a daycare centre that set out the commitments and obligations of each party. ...

8 February 2011 External T.I. 2011-0392401E5 F- Crédit d'impôt pour frais médicaux-- summary under Subsection 118.4(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 118.4- Subsection 118.4(2) expenses of Quebec massage therapists were ineligible In indicating that expenses paid to Quebec massage therapists were ineligible for the credit, CRA stated: It is therefore necessary to determine whether the applicable provincial legislation … includes massage therapists with medical practitioners which, according to our understanding of that legislation, would not appear to be the case. For the same reason … Chevalier … 2008 TCC 11 … concluded that the fees paid for the services of a naturopathic doctor and an osteopathic practitioner did not qualify for the medical expense tax credit. ...