Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

In rejecting their submissions that the dividends paid to them were partial consideration for such services so as to oust the application of s. 160 to the dividends, Monaghan J stated (at paras 15, 17, 19): The evidence that the dividends … were partial consideration for their services … was not very strong. … However, even if I accept that the Valovics reduced the amount of employment income and increased the amount of dividends, and that all payments were made because of the services they provided, the appeals must fail. … [T]his Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have consistently rejected the argument that consideration may be given for dividends, including in the context of section 160. These decisions accepted and endorsed the view expressed in Neuman that dividends relate to shareholding and rejected the argument that there was consideration for the dividends. … …Having decided to transform what the Valovics now wish to characterize as consideration for services rendered into a dividend for any reason, including tax advantages, the Valovics must accept the consequences of that decision. … ...

After referring to the Honeywell characterization of a waiver as relating to a bargain under which the taxpayer foregoes the benefit of the normal reassessment period and the Minister acquires the right to assess beyond that period but only respecting the specified matter, C Miller J stated (at paras. 285-286): For an assessment to reasonably relate to a matter in a waiver … it must reasonably relate to the bargain …. There was no bargain between the parties at the time of signing the … waivers that related in any way … to a GAAR application. … The GAAR is a powerful tool in the government’s toolbox which should only normally be viewed as a separate matter, requiring specific mention in a waiver. ...

" See summaries under s. 9 – timing, s. 9 – compensation payments and s. 9 – computation of profit. ...

The evidence rather establishes that ISAF was set up by United Nations Security Council …. … [E]ven if ISAF were to be considered a subsidiary body of NATO … [and] despite the fact that ISAF employs civilian personnel like the Appellant, it is still a military body. ...

. … [T]he words “with all due dispatch”, as set out in section 152(1)…, have no bearing on this analysis. In also rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that he had ceased to be a director in 2006 as all the assets and undertaking of the corporation had devolved to the trustee in bankruptcy, so that the two-year limitation period precluded the Minister’s assessment, Smith J stated (at paras. 24-26): … Kalef …found that Mr. ... More importantly, I note that the assessment … relates to amounts due … which arose prior to the date of bankruptcy. … I conclude that the Appellant was still a director of the Corporation when the Notice of Assessment was issued in May 2012. ...

. … The taxpayer must show that the debt in issue was included in his income for the year the deduction is claimed or for a preceding taxation year. ... Hokhold … do not identify any particular debts owing. She has simply aggregated what she believes to have been the total receipts of the practice annually over a four year period and deducted that amount from the total revenue reported by the Appellant in order to compute the bad debt claim. … The word “debt” … has been judicially defined … as “a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand, recoverable by action”: Diewold v. ... …[T]here is simply no way of assessing the accuracy of the amount claimed in the absence of the business records from the Appellant’s practice. … Even if the Appellant had proved the existence of the debts, I would have been unable to conclude what part, if any, of those debts went bad in 2008. … Paragraph 20(1)(p) … only allows for a deduction in the year during which the debt goes bad. … ...

" See summaries under s. 9 – timing, s. 12(1)(x), s. 9 – compensation payments, and s. 9 – computation of profit. ...

In affirming the Minister’s assessment, which treated the amounts paid out to the taxpayer under the first two policies as s. 9 income, Favreau J stated (at paras. 28-31, TaxIntepretations translation): [T]he insurance benefits under dispute were paid for the purpose of reimbursing the appellant for part of the general expenses of her clinic during her period of illness and that were essential for the appellant’s clinic to continue being carried on …. ... Consequently, as the source of the insurance benefits was the business of the appellant, the insurance benefits paid to the appellant were required to be included in the computation of her business income. … These benefits were not of a personal nature …. The surrogatum principle … is applicable. By virtue of this principle, the tax treatment of sickness insurance benefits depends on what such benefits are intended to replace being, in this case, the general expenses of carrying on the dental clinic. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 63, aff'd on different grounds 2024 FCA 3-- summary under Compensation Payments Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 9- Compensation Payments a break fee was income from a business An integrated nickel-mining public company (“Falconbridge” – a predecessor of the taxpayer), entered into merger agreements with a more junior public company (“DFR”) which, through a 75%-owned subsidiary, held a valuable nickel-copper-cobalt deposit at Voisey’s Bay in Newfoundland. ... In fact, another public company (“Inco” – the 25% minority shareholder) made a subsequent offer that was accepted by DFR, thereby triggering the payment by it of the break fee. ... Falconbridge was carrying on its business when it negotiated the Merger … Agreement[s], both of which provided for the fees in dispute. … The … Fees were ancillary business income received by Falconbridge in the course of earning income from business. ...

. … The OECD Commentary on Article 4 … confirms that … [t]he object and purpose of the provision, “is to exclude persons who are not subject to comprehensive taxation (full liability for tax) in a State.” … I am of the view that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant was subject to comprehensive taxation in the Netherlands. ... …[W]here a person considers that the action of one or both of the States will result in … double taxation, an application in writing may be filed with “the competent authority of the State of which he is a resident … to resolve the issue by mutual agreement with the competent authority of the other State.” ... The Appellant was formally notified of the Minister’s decision to reassess … on July 3, 2013. ...