Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

In finding that the NCLs accumulated by Holdco likely could not be deducted in computing Amalco's taxable income in light of the ss. 87(2.1) and 111(5) restrictions, CRA stated: [O]n the limited basis of the facts submitted … it would be reasonable to consider that the business that generated the losses, namely the management services business that was carried on by Holdco prior to the acquisition of control … ceased to be operated after the amalgamation. This conclusion is based in particular on … the management activities performed by the Amalco employee [being] intended solely to support the corporation in the manufacturing field, and … not in themselves represent[ing] the carrying on of a business. … Regarding the factual variation where Amalco had two divisions: one carrying on the manufacturing business; and the second division for management services, including those previously rendered by Holdco to Opco, CRA stated: [C]reating two divisions with a separate financial statement for the management services and manufacturing businesses would not change our conclusion … that it would be reasonable to consider that the management services business that was carried on by Holdco ceased to be carried on after the amalgamation of Holdco and Opco. ...

. … [S]ubsection 13(3) of the Copyright Act … states that, unless otherwise provided by contract, copyright in a work created in the course of employment is the property of the employer and not of the author. That being said … F 2002-0149781R3 [found] that a right to royalties from SOCAN constituted "eligible property" …. ...

CRA responded: [Ss.] 251(5)(b)(ii) and … 256(1.4)(b) … [are] broad enough to apply to a situation where a particular person does not have control over the triggering of an event that would entitle that person to require a corporation to redeem, acquire or cancel shares of its capital stock owned by another shareholder. … In addition, the CRA has ruled … that those two provisions generally should not apply to a situation where a corporation is required to redeem or cancel shares of its capital stock held by a shareholder who has been found guilty of fraud in relation to the corporation. … [See] F 2002-0172315 and F 2006-0167361E5. ...

However, in the same year, the equipment was also used for a number of months on other farmland owned by them in a non-qualifying region – and the equipment was not used at all in the winter months. ... CRA responded: [A]n analysis of the facts must be made … to ascertain the governing intention when the property was acquired. … Thus, the taxpayer must be able to establish the taxpayer’s intention, i.e., to have acquired the new farm equipment primarily for use throughout its lifetime on farm land situated in XXXXXXXXXX. ... The … "operating time" generally refers to the time the equipment usually runs or functions during the taxation year. … Where there are two co-owners, we agree that it is possible for them to divide the total of qualified property eligible for the ITC between themselves…. ...

X …. The Residence would therefore have been disposed of by [them to] Mrs. X …. Regarding the verbal agreement … it is up to the taxpayer to demonstrate the existence of such an agreement whose effect is to transfer the ownership of the Residence at a particular time other than on XXXXXXXXXX. If the taxpayers can provide evidence to you of that verbal agreement, you should consult … Legal Services …. ...

. … IT-169 … addresses situations where the CRA determines that the FMV is higher or lower than the price otherwise determined by the parties to an agreement. Consequently … this Bulletin does not apply in this situation. [I]t is impossible … to comment as to its retroactive effect to the day of the initial transaction, since we do not have all the particulars …. ...

23 June 2010 Internal T.I. 2010-0368161I7 F- 84.1-- summary under Paragraph 84.1(2)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 84.1- Subsection 84.1(2)- Paragraph 84.1(2)(b) s. 84.1(2)(b) inapplicable to individual’s transfer of ½ of Opco to Holdco (owned by 3 unrelated individuals) for note and non-voting pref Three individuals (A, B, and C) each held 1/3 of the shares of Holdco, and Holdco and another individual, D, each held ½ of the shares of Opco. ... [Thereafter] … the Purchaser … is controlled by a group of 4 persons consisting of A, B, C and D (the Final Group). ... Consequently, the deeming provision in paragraph 84.1(2)(b) could not apply …. ...

A), who hold 80% and 20%, respective interests in, and devote themselves full time to the business of, a general partnership ("SENC"), transfer 1% of their units to a corporation whose common shares are owned by them on an 80% /20%.basis – and they and the two other employees become employees of the corporation. ... CRA stated: [Our] long-standing position … is that subsection 103(1) or (1.1) could apply if the allocation of partnership income does not take into account the contribution of each partner. … … [W]e are of the view that, on the face of it, the allocation of income does not take into account the contribution of each partner. Consequently … the Agreement could result in the application of subsections 103(1) or 103(1.1). ...

After assuming that the corporation was a “common carrier” (as referenced in Reg. 1104(2)), which CRA described as “a person who carries on the business of providing, for consideration, a service of transporting property or persons from one place to another and who generally offers its services to the public,” CRA stated: [P]roperty described in subparagraph (h)(ii) of Class 1 …, that is, property acquired after May 25, 1976, may be included in a railway system. By virtue of paragraph (a) of Class 4 … property that would otherwise be included in another class in Schedule II, consisting of a railway system or part thereof, except automotive equipment not designed to run on rails or tracks, that was acquired after the end of the taxpayer’s 1958 taxation year and before May 26, 1976, is to be included in that class. After reviewing the history and overall context of the regulatory provisions dealing with the capital cost allowance of assets in the railway industry, it is our opinion that the post-1958 year-end acquisition test in paragraph (a) of Class 4 … should relate only to non-railway automotive equipment. … [Thus] a railway system acquired prior to 1958 is depreciable property that falls within Class 4 …. ...

18 December 2009 External T.I. 2009-0313121E5 F- Sommes reçues par un associé qui se retire-- summary under Paragraph 96(1.1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1.1)- Paragraph 96(1.1)(a) s. 98.1(1)(a) applies where an agreement to make a payment in compensation for partnership goodwill, cf. where agreement to allocate income Upon the taxpayer’s withdrawal from a partnership, the partnership agreement (the “Original Agreement”) provided for the payment to him or her of lump sum amounts, equal to an average of the former partner’s annual partnership income (or ½ that sum in some circumstances), to be paid as compensation for a share of the partnership goodwill. Respecting whether s. 96(1.1) applied, CRA stated: [W]e do not believe that the compensatory provision in the Original Agreement can help us determine the nature of the amounts you received … [and] it is an agreement, written or unwritten, between a person who ceases to be a partner and the other members of the partnership that determines which of subsection 96(1.1) or section 98.1 applies. … [I]f a person who ceases to be a partner, demonstrates that the person contributed to the creation of goodwill and receives payments in respect thereof, the payments could be consideration for the former partner's rights to partnership property and would, therefore, be payments of capital. … … A member who ceases to be a member of a partnership has an income interest in the partnership under subsection 96(1.1) if, inter alia, all the members agree to allocate a portion of the partnership's income to the member who has ceased to be a member of the partnership. ...