Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Does the application of s. 55(2) to the deemed dividend received by each corporation, which generates an addition to its RDTOH account and, therefore, generates a dividend refund to it and associated Part IV tax on the deemed dividend paid by it to the other corporation, engage the exclusion from s. 55(2) for dividends which are subject to Part IV tax – or does the Part IV tax exclusion not apply so that s. 55(2) applies to the full amount of the deemed dividend received by each corporation? ... Furthermore … in … 943963 Ontario Inc. … the parties … and the Court accepted that there was a given amount subject to Part IV tax by the appellant, the dividend recipient, notwithstanding that a part of the deemed dividend…was deemed to not be a dividend received, by virtue of subsection 55(2). ... The application of subsection 55(2) in that case did not engage any circular calculation. … Moreover, the fact of calculating the RDTOH account at the end of a taxation year of each corporation in such a situation…involving cross redemptions and thus cross dividends, entails circular calculations by them of their respective RDTOH, dividend refunds and Part IV tax. ...

CRA responded: [S]subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iii) does not apply because it … was not given as an inducement to the taxpayer or the trust to undertake certain activities. … Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting … [found] that paragraph 12(1)(x) was not applicable to the amount received by the taxpayer because the taxpayer was not the one who made or incurred the expenditure …. [S]ubparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv) does not apply because it was the trust that incurred or made the Part XII.4 tax expenditure in respect of which the credit was received, not Corporation A. … … This interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(x) … appears to be consistent with … [the] Explanatory Notes ...

CRA stated: The taxpayer's administrative policy for all officers and directors to reimburse the cost of a business class airline ticket in certain circumstances primarily benefits the employer. … [B]usiness class air travel may allow the employer to get better performance from the employee. Consequently … the reimbursement … does not constitute a taxable benefit …. … [T]he reimbursement of the spouse's ticket is made primarily for the benefit of the employee and … the latter derives an economic advantage from it. ... Thus … the reimbursement … is a benefit to be included in the employee's income under paragraph 6(1)(a). ...

A, Holdco A and Trust A sell ½. ½ and ¼, respectively, of their shares of Corporation A on a s. 85(1) rollover basis in exchange for similar-attribute shares of Newco. ...

8 February 2011 External T.I. 2011-0392401E5 F- Crédit d'impôt pour frais médicaux-- summary under Subsection 118.4(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 118.4- Subsection 118.4(2) expenses of Quebec massage therapists were ineligible In indicating that expenses paid to Quebec massage therapists were ineligible for the credit, CRA stated: It is therefore necessary to determine whether the applicable provincial legislation … includes massage therapists with medical practitioners which, according to our understanding of that legislation, would not appear to be the case. For the same reason … Chevalier … 2008 TCC 11 … concluded that the fees paid for the services of a naturopathic doctor and an osteopathic practitioner did not qualify for the medical expense tax credit. ...

CRA indicated that: “the creation of a Secondary Suite, either within or detached from a Homeowner’s principal residence, to be used for earning rental income will generally trigger a deemed disposition pertaining to the portion of the Property so converted pursuant to subparagraph 45(1)(c)(ii)”; the homeowner could make an election pursuant to s. 45(2) to defer the recognition of any resulting gain to a later taxation year; for purposes of the principal residence exemption, “if two housing units can be enjoyed and ordinarily inhabited separate from each other without access to the other (that is, if each unit is a self-contained unit with its own entrance, kitchen and bathroom) … they will be considered separate housing units” even if “the housing units are part of a single structure or are not on separate legal lots” – so that on disposing the homeowner would have to choose which of the two units to designate as principal residence for each applicable year, as discussed below; and although the ordinarily-inhabited condition under the principal residence definition would not generally be met for the Secondary Suite while it was rented to third parties, “[w]here a subsection 45(2) election is made by a taxpayer for a property that is the subject of a change in use, the property can qualify as the taxpayer’s principal residence for up to four taxation years during which the election remains in force, even if during those years the housing unit was not ordinarily inhabited by the taxpayer or one of the … family members ….” – so that the homeowner would be able to choose for such a year to designate the Secondary Suite rather than the balance of the property as that taxpayer’s principal residence. ...

CRA first noted: … Consolidated Holding … and … Fawcett …held that there is no distinction to be made between a person acting in his or her personal capacity or as a trustee. ... Thus, where a trust established for one purpose controls one corporation and a second trust established for another purpose controls a second corporation, and the same trustees vote the shares of both corporations held by each trust, we are of the view that the two corporations are generally controlled by the same group of persons. … Applying these principles, CRA concluded: [B]ecause of their role as trustees of each of the trusts, X and Z would form a group of persons that could control each of the corporations involved. ...

Our view is supported by the … Explanatory Notes …. Therefore … since it has been assumed that Mrs. ...

. … … [I]t cannot be considered … that the amounts payable by Corporation B and/or Corporation C under the second contract could represent consideration for the use of an amount of capital (or a right to the amount of capital). … [In addition t]he contractual relationship between Corporation A and Corporation B, on the one hand, and Corporation A and Corporation C, on the other hand, … does not appear to us to create a lender-borrower relationship between those corporations, so that subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) cannot be applicable. ...

This interpretation is consistent with [9422630] …. Since … the trust indenture indicates that the trustees shall act in a manner that promotes or supports the purposes for which the trust was created, the granting of annuity contracts by the trust is part of a strategy to increase its gift income and enable it to achieve its purposes, even though the trust indenture contains no specific reference to the provision of such annuity contracts. … [T]herefore … subsection 75(2) applies …. ...