Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

X satisfied the active engagement condition with respect to Opco’s business, and further finding that if “Holdco will pay the Dividend to Child X out of the funds from the $100,000 dividend received from Opco or from any dividends previously received from Opco, then … the Dividend would thus have come, directly or indirectly, from a related business- that of Opco- in respect of Child X.” so that the Dividend would be added to the split income of Child X, unless it constituted an excluded amount by virtue of another exclusion, CRA then stated: [I]f it can be determined that Holdco will pay the Dividend to Child X out of its after-tax income from its stock market investments, then that dividend would be an excluded amount for Child X and would not be included in calculating the child’s split income. ... On the other hand, if it were determined that Holdco does not carry on a business, then the Dividend would also be an "excluded amount" in respect of Child X by virtue of subparagraph (e)(i) of the definition … [since] there must be … a business carried on by an entity. … Based on the foregoing, Holdco must adequately monitor its funds derived from stock market investments in order to determine whether those funds were used to pay the Dividend. ...

. … … Mr. and Ms. X will not be able to avail themselves of the HBP rules …. ...

Therefore … the Taxpayer would be eligible to claim a foreign tax credit … [whose] amount … would be determined based on the computational rules of section 126.... ...

Furthermore … the Purpose Test contained in subsection 55(2) must, as a technical matter, be considered in respect of a disposition of any share of the capital stock of XYZ Corp. Scenario 2 [S]ubsection 55(2) would apply in respect of the deemed dividend received by Bco … to the extent that the dividend could reasonably be considered to be attributable to something other than safe income on hand, attributable to the shares of the capital stock of XYZ Corp. held by Bco and before the "safe income determination time" …. [P]aragraph 55(3)(a) would not apply to exempt the dividend … [as] the repurchase by XYZ Corp. … would come within subparagraphs 55(3)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (v). ...

2018 Ruling 2017-0738041R3- XXXXXXXXXX-- summary under Subsection 104(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- 101-110- Section 104- Subsection 104(1) a foreign collective investment vehicle is fiscally transparent rather than a unit trust Fund The Fund constitutes a collective investment vehicle that is not a body corporate, a partnership or a limited partnership, under which the Unitholders by contractual arrangements (set out in a deed) between a manager and a depositary, beneficially own the underlying property as tenants in common – with their Units representing proportionate interests in the Fund. ... Subfund The Deed states: “Any reference in this Deed to Units being issued “in respect of” a Sub-fund or “relating” to a Sub-fund shall be construed as a reference to Units which give the holder of them co-ownership of that part of the … Property comprising the Sub-fund in question and the entitlement … to exchange co-ownership of that part of the … Property for that part of the … Property comprising any other Sub-fund.” ...

In addition … transactions of the type described above could … give rise to surplus stripping situations … which could also trigger the application of subsection 245(2). ...

DSI of Holdco 2 after reorg: (DSI of Holdco 2 prior to reorg ($10) + $72 DSI considered to have been received from Opco per 2 above) x net cost amount of assets considered retained by Holdco 2 ($37 per 3 above, plus the $20 cost of other assets, totaling $57) / (net cost amount of assets of Holdco 2 “prior to” [sic] reorg ($57) + net cost amount of assets considered to have been received from Opco ($100 cost of Property 1)) = 82 x 57/157 = $30. 5. DSI of Holdco 2 considered to be transferred to Holdco 1: $82 – $30 = $52. 6. ... DSI of Holdco 1 after reorg: DSI of Holdco 1 prior to reorg ($1,000) + amount considered to have been received from Holdco 1 ($52) = $1,052. ...

CRA responded: In addition to the factors set out in … IT-447 … the Canadian competent authority may consider some of the following factors: the settlor's residency; the residency of the beneficiaries; the location of the property of the trust; the reason the trust was established in a particular jurisdiction, etc. … In situations where the two countries cannot find common ground, it is possible that the negotiations result in the double residency of the trust. ... In addition, the legislative amendments … [under] the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act … a trust deemed to be resident in Canada pursuant to subsection 94(3) is deemed to be resident in Canada … for the purposes of the Convention. … [T]he effect of this new provision is to make it impossible to break the tie because it deems such an equality to be non-existent. In the unlikely event that there is evidence of taxation imposed contrary to the Convention and double taxation, the Canadian competent authority has confirmed to us that it would be prepared to consider the matter and facts specific to the situation leading to double taxation in order to determine whether a unilateral solution is possible or if negotiations with the other Contracting State are required …. ...

A under subsection 74.2(1) …. By virtue of paragraph 40(3.6)(b), the amount of the Denied Loss … could, however, be added to … the ACB, to Mr. B, of each of the common shares of the capital stock of Opco that is owned by him immediately following the disposition …. … [A subsequent] taxable capital gain or an allowable capital loss [realized by Mr. B] on the disposition of a common share … of Opco … would not be realized or sustained by Mr. ...

9 April 2003 Internal T.I. 2003-0001597 F- FRAIS ACCESSOIRES-- summary under Subsection 18(3.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 18- Subsection 18(3.1) application of s. 18(3.1) to work on a rental property The Directorate indicated that s. 18(3.1) applied to the following categories of expenditures if work on a rental building constituted a renovation rather than repair and maintenance work giving rise to currently deductible expenses: Property taxes during the renovation period that are related to the ownership of the land subjacent to the building …. … [P]roperty taxes related to the ownership of land that meets the following conditions: 1. it is contiguous to the land subjacent to the building 2. it is used, or intended to be used, as a parking lot, driveway, yard or garden or for a similar purpose 3. it is necessary for the present or proposed use of the building. … Interest charges on the portion of the mortgage obtained to renovate the building that relates to the renovation period … [and] interest charges on the portion of the mortgage used to acquire the land described above that relates to the renovation period. Insurance and utility costs … only to the extent that they relate to the renovation. For example, this would be the case for additional insurance costs that the taxpayer had to incur to cover a risk related to the renovation. … Legal costs related to obtaining financing for the renovation … [and] the legal costs of acquiring the building and land …. ...