Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Under the gifting component, each taxpayer transferred $10,200 to a registered charity (“TGTFC”) of which $10,000 per LP Unit was funded by a loan from FT (the “TGTFC Loan” – maturing in February 2019) that required that the borrowed funds be so transferred to TGTFC and that bore interest at 7.85% p.a., of which 3.75% p.a. was required to be paid annually in cash (“cash-pay interest”) and the balance was to be funded through with further cash advances from the lender (“capitalized interest”), namely, FT. ... In confirming CRA’s complete denial of charitable credits to the taxpayers (and before turning to the effect of the split-receipting rule in s. 248(32) and the limited-recourse amount rule in s. 142.3(7)), Owen J stated (at para 272): Maréchaux and Kossow hold that a transfer of property is not gratuitous if a benefit flows to the transferee as part of an interconnected series of transactions that includes the transfer of property. … In finding that there was such a benefit here by virtue of the TGTFC Loan having been made at an unreasonably low rate of interest, Owen J stated (at paras 311, 314, 316): I find it especially difficult to believe that an arm’s length commercial lender in the same circumstances would lend such significant amounts, which accumulate over 9 years to become even larger amounts, at a rate that is only roughly 1% above the rate on a 10-year residential mortgage. ... In my view, a lender in these circumstances would require detailed information to support the creditworthiness of the Appellants … and would require full disclosure of all liabilities…. … I conclude that a commercially reasonable interest rate on the TGTFC Loans would be no less than… 10%. ...

A New York LLC (“Wolfbend”) was established for the purpose of collecting profits earned under the Manufacturing & License Agreement between the taxpayer and Davis Aircraft Inc. and allocating those profits to its members, being the taxpayer, his brother and Davis family members. ... Ouimet J stated (at paras 59, 60-61): …[P]roviding engineering services is a business and, therefore, the income of CAD$26,244 earned in Canada was generated by an “active” commercial activity. … [T]he income generated by manufacturing activity is also from an “active” business. ... Therefore … the revenues from all three sources qualify as “active business” revenues. ...

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

. … CAIL filed the Plan under the CCAA which released it of its liabilities arising before March 24, 2000. ... But in the absence of provisions in the Act spelling out when such limitation is lifted, such finding is best left for another day – perhaps in a collection forum.... ...

. … CAIL filed the Plan under the CCAA which released it of its liabilities arising before March 24, 2000. ... But in the absence of provisions in the Act spelling out when such limitation is lifted, such finding is best left for another day – perhaps in a collection forum. ...

Miller J. concluded (at paras. 35 & 36): [T]he context of the “dividend refund” described in paragraph 129(1)(a) is within the system used to collect tax up front from a corporation and then to refund that tax, or part of it, when a dividend is paid out to a shareholder. … The purpose of the section 129 is to prevent tax deferral by placing the shareholder who has received the dividends in much the same tax position as if he had received the investment income himself without the intermediary corporation. ...

. … I can not accept the taxpayer’s submission that the only service which Three-W was paid to provide was that of recruiting students and it was entitled to its commissions once the students were registered regardless. … The service is not provided wholly outside Canada for purposes of paragraph 142(1)(g). ...

. … …[S]ubsection 100(1) looks at the capital gain otherwise determined under the Act and then determines which portion of the capital gain is taxable. The Respondent is, in effect, asking me to find that one of the purposes of subsection 100(1) is to base the capital gain not on the gain otherwise calculated under the Act, but rather on accrued gains (including recapture) of property held by the partnership. … If Parliament had intended such a result it would have drafted subsection 100(1) in a manner that required such a look-through, in other words, in a manner similar to new subparagraph 88(1)(d)(ii.1) of the bump rules. ...

. … …Athabasca’s purpose in acquiring the Books was to utilize these as inputs in its supply of exempt instructional services rather than to supply the Books by way of sale. Accordingly, I conclude “purpose” in the exclusionary phrase refers to the ultimate purpose. … …[T]he wording of the provision is clear that Athabasca was to have made a supply of the Books and not merely a transfer of ownership of the Books. ...

. … For tax purposes, a bare trust is considered a non-entity in the sense that a beneficiary as principal, is considered to deal directly with property through the trustee as agent or nominee…. … Since I have concluded that Dr. ...