Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

CRA responded: [I]n determining whether a partnership (where that partnership exists), which is itself a partner of another partnership, is actively engaged in the activities of that other partnership … it is possible to take into account the degree of involvement of the partner in the activities of the partnership subject, inter alia, to the partnership agreements involved. … [S]ubject inter alia to the partnership agreements involved, the more Mr. V is involved in the management and/or day-to-day business of SENC-SV, the less likely it will be that SENC-V will be considered a specified member …. ... On the other hand … it would be possible to take into account the degree of involvement, among others, of the directors and employees of the corporation to verify whether the corporation actively engages in the partnership’s business. ...

If the tax credits reduce the undepreciated capital cost (UCC) of the LP’s depreciable property, in which taxation year should the LP make the deduction given that, on October 31, it does not know whether the limited partners will use the credits in question – and how can such information be obtained from numerous limited partners? CRA responded: [A] taxpayer is entitled to receive the amount of the Quebec capital tax credit that does not exceed the capital tax otherwise payable for the year, at the end of its taxation year … [and] is generally entitled to receive the Quebec ITC at the end of its taxation year. ... In this case, the assistance reduces the capital cost of the depreciable property that qualifies for it, and thereby the UCC of the classes to which the property belongs, in the LP's taxation year that ends on October 31 of the year following the particular year. … [A]n LP must make arrangements with its partners to provide [the required] information to the LP …. ...

. … Second, the replacement property must have been acquired for the same or similar use as the former property. If the former property is a secondary residence, this requirement could be satisfied if the new property qualifies as personal-use property …. The geographic location of the "replacement property" is generally not a determining factor …. ...

The Excise and GST/HST Rulings Directorate queried the view in 2014-0530691E5, respecting language, similar to that quoted above, appearing in ITA s. 8(1)(i)(i), that: a professional status would generally have to be acknowledged in the statute itself to satisfy the “recognized by statute” condition in subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) …. After stating that Montgomery: clarified that the phrase “recognized by statute” should be afforded a broad interpretation, and that “recognized by statute” does not necessarily mean that a professional status was incorporated, created, or regulated by a particular statute and noting that 2014-0530691E5 was somewhat inconsistent with 2012-0444181M4, the Income Tax Rulings Directorate concluded: [W]e would agree with your views that for purposes of the meaning of the phrase “professional status recognized by statute” … applying a textual, contextual and purposive analysis, a “professional status” can be “recognized by a statute” for purposes of subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) … even if it is only recognized in the supporting regulations of an act. However … where a “professional status” is only acknowledged in an organization’s bylaws, the “professional status” would not likely be considered “recognized by statute” …. ...

. … The fact that the wife did not contribute financially towards the purchase of the Home is not necessarily indicative of whether or not she holds a beneficial interest in the property. ... As such … the taxpayer referred to [in s. 45] would typically be the beneficial owner of the property, whether such ownership is jointly held with another person or otherwise. Therefore, if both spouses are considered to have beneficial ownership … they would both be required to file the election …. ...

After noting that the (apparently Quebec) statutory provisions governing an IMB are similar to those governing a CBCA corporation, including providing that the IMB is a legal person (“personne morale”), has limited liability, except in relation to certain borrowings, has a board of directors and is governed by by-laws and resolutions – and the interests in it carry voting rights, CRA stated: [A]n IMB created under the XXXXXXXXXX qualifies as a corporation under subsection 248(1).However, paragraph 1100(26)(b) of the Regulations requires that each member of the partnership be a corporation described in paragraph 1100(26)(a) of the Regulations – that is a corporation whose principal business throughout a taxation year is: (i) manufacturing or processing; (ii) mining operation; or (iii) the sale, distribution or production of electricity, natural gas, oil, steam, heat or any other form of energy or potential energy – or another partnership described in paragraph 1100(26)(b) of the Regulations. … [B]ased on the limited facts provided … we cannot provide a definitive answer to this [latter] question. ...

CRA responded: [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 and prior to the amalgamation of Holdco and Opco, 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. … [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. ...

A's loss is not a "superficial loss" …. [T]he RRSP trust under which Ms. ... However, the RRSP trust does not own the substituted property or have the right to acquire it at the end of the [30-day] period …. ... B's RRSP trust had instead reacquired the shares on October 2, 2021 … subparagraph 40(2)(g)(i) would not apply …. ...

The Directorate stated: [P]aragraph 84.1(1)(a) would not apply to the disposition by each of Brother 1 and Brother 2 of the Class A shares … of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2 … to reduce the ACB in respect of the Class B preferred shares … of Holdco 5 and Holdco 6 received as consideration. … [F]or the purposes of paragraph 84.1(1)(a), the ACB to Brother 1 or Brother 2 … of the Class A shares of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2, as the case may be, would technically be deemed to be approximately $XXXXXXX. This is because there would technically be no amount each of which is an amount determined after 1984 under subparagraph 40(1)(a)(i) in respect of a previous disposition of a Class A share of the capital stock of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2, as the case may be, or to an earlier disposition of a share for which that Class A share of the capital stock of Amalco 1 or Amalco 2 would have been substituted (i.e., a Class A share of the capital stock of Holdco 3 or Holdco 4, as the case may be, or, having regard to subsection 248(5), a Class A share of the capital stock of Holdco 1 or Holdco 2, or any of the 149 Class A shares of the capital stock of Opco referred to in (1)(c) above). … [However] in the event that taxpayers apply for advance rulings in respect of a series of proposed transactions similar to the one described above …[we] would … refer such a case to the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") Committee. ...

However, … subsection 246(1) may apply … if it were established that Corporation C conferred the benefit for the personal use of the Aircraft.” ... A’s income … if it was a payment made directly to Mr. A, since Mr. A is not a shareholder of Corporation E. ... A … However, in … Masicotte the judge concluded that subsection 246(1) could apply when a corporation confers a benefit on an indirect shareholder. ...