Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

In confirming this interpretation, CRA stated: [P]aragraph 84.1(2.3)(b) … does not apply for the purposes of section 110.6 … and, therefore, it does not reduce a taxpayer’s capital gains deduction. In addition, paragraph 84.1(2.3)(b) … does not otherwise affect a taxpayer’s ability to rely on the deeming rule in paragraph 84.1(2)(e) …. ...

. … IT-422, [para. 2] … provides that in order for an asset to be a tool, it must be designed to create a physical change in something or be used as an instrument of measurement or manipulation. … In addition, paragraph 8(6.1)(d) of the Act specifically excludes electronic communication devices as eligible tools. Therefore, the cost of an aviation headset would not be deductible under paragraph 8(1)(s), or any other provision …. ...

Is the capital loss as computed before the application of s. 40(3.6) attributed to X or to the protective trust, and is it added to the ACB of the trust's or X's shares – and would the answers change if all the shares were held by the trust? CRA responded (TaxInterpretations translation): … 5(a) … Subsection 108(5) does not have the effect of modifying the application of subsection 75(2). In our view, the net rental income from the lease of the real property transferred to the trust...preserves its nature and the transferee must include this net rental income in his or her return of income. … For purposes of calculating the "RRSP deduction limit" of the person subject to subsection 75(2) …the income from the rental property…is included in his or her "earned income"…. … 5(b) …A loss deemed to be nil under paragraph 40(3.6)(a)(i) cannot be attributed to anyone. ...

10 June 2009 External T.I. 2009-0308031E5 F- Admissibilité partagée de la PFCE-- summary under Paragraph (f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 122.6- Eligible Individual- Paragraph (f) factors in Reg. 6302 applied to determine which parent has primary care responsibility – if indeterminate, CRA applies its shared eligibility policy The father and mother, who are separated, have not remarried and remain in the same neighbourhood in their respective residences, have joint custody of a child (and “eligible dependant”), living alternately with each other (either four days with one and three days with the other, or one week with one, and one week with the other), with the mother denied the CCTB for a period of six months per year under CRA’s CCTB shared eligibility policy. ... CRA stated: … Cabot … [1998] 4 C.T.C. 289 established that the presumption in paragraph (f) is rebuttable, not only in the circumstances set out in [Reg.] 6301(1)… but also in light of the criteria listed in [Reg.[6302 of the Regulations. … Consequently, it is necessary to determine which parent, at the beginning of each month, primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant. … To address the difficulty of determining the "eligible individual" in a shared custody situation for equivalent periods of time, the Agency has developed a CCTB shared eligibility policy that recognizes that there may be, in these specific situations, two eligible individuals for the same child. ... This rotation will continue until the situation changes or until the child turns 18 years of age. … In light of the foregoing and the factors to be considered under section 6302 of the Regulations, if the facts of the Particular Situation support the conclusion that the mother is the person who primarily fulfills the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her child in a year, she potentially will qualify as the eligible individual throughout that year. ...

CRA responded: IT-99R5 … states that if a taxpayer is unsuccessful in court and fails to establish that an amount is owed, then no deduction is allowed. However, those comments are no longer accurate based on … Loo …[which] ruled that a taxpayer’s legal action need not be successful in order to deduct an amount under paragraph 8(1)(b)…. ... CRA responded: For the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(b) … the taxpayer needs to look at … if the purpose was to collect or establish a right to collect an amount owed. ...

. … Ongoing consultations expenses similar to those described above would appear to be in respect of the exploration process only and therefore would generally be considered to be CEE. … [T]argeted environmental assessments, such as biodiversity and species at risk, that are conducted in conjunction with exploration activities would generally be considered to be CEE. … [E]xpenses for legally documenting arrangements agreed to with the leaders of a community during community consultations would generally be considered to meet the Purpose Test and therefore would be considered to be CEE, to the extent that such legal documentation relates to the exploration process.... Any expenses … that relate to … the development, production or reclamation stages of the project), would not meet the Purpose Test …. ...

Accordingly … were Canco and Forco A to make the election … in determining Canco’s decline in qualifying revenue based on Forco A’s decline in qualifying revenue, Forco A would not have any qualifying revenue because it earns all of its revenue from persons or partnerships not dealing at arm’s length with it (Forco B). [Thus] … the election in paragraph 125.7(4)(d) would not work. In our view, the election in paragraph 125.7(4)(d) may not be made by a multi-tiered structure or chain of entities that are not dealing with each other at arm’s length. An election under another special rule under subsection 125.7(4) … may, however, be available … to allow an alternate method of calculating qualifying revenue for an eligible entity, such as the election for affiliated eligible entities in paragraph 125.7(4)(b). ...

CRA responded: Generally … to be a right or thing … the individual would have to be legally entitled to receive the amount at the time of the individual’s death (the right would have to exist) and the value of that right would have to be determinable at that time. … By virtue of paragraph 138.1(1)(f), the taxable income of the related segregated fund trust is deemed for the purposes of subsections 104(6), (13) and (24) to be an amount that has become payable in the year to the beneficiaries under the segregated fund trust and the amount therefor in respect of any particular beneficiary is equal to the amount determined by reference to the terms and conditions of the segregated fund policy. … We understand that, regardless of the method of income allocation used by the insurer, no amount is actually paid or payable to a related segregated fund policyholder in respect of income allocations made by the insurer. ... Consequently, income and capital gains allocated to a related segregated fund policyholder in accordance with the terms of the policy … are not rights or things for the purposes of subsection 70(2) …. ...

It is arguable that the acquisition of the … MRPS is not considered part of the ordinary course of business carried on by [Canco 2], but rather the acquisition may be considered an isolated and special transaction that is not part of a course of conduct that involves repeated dealings of a similar nature. … [I]t is also important to consider whether the arrangement in the current case, at its core, more closely resembles a debt financing arrangement or a capital investment. …[W]e are more inclined to conclude that the arrangement more closely resembles a capital investment. … [Canco 2] is not in the business of lending money to the general public or to any disinterested third parties and the loans it made were limited to its foreign related corporations. All of the proceeds from the issue of the … MRPS were used by Luxco 1 to make loans to … US foreign affiliates for their US operations. … ...

CRA responded: The term "undeducted RRSP premiums" used in the calculation of the cumulative excess amount in respect of RRSPs … represents the undeducted premiums, at a particular time in a taxation year, that the individual has paid into RRSPs. That amount is calculated according to the following formula: H + I- J. Element J … represents the amount by which the total of the following amounts exceeds any amount deducted under paragraph 60(l) in computing the individual’s income. ...