Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

CRA stated: In order to determine whether a building is used for residential purposes- and therefore for purposes that do not qualify for accelerated CCA- … it is necessary to consider the use of the building by its occupants. ... Conversely … a building that is used in the operation of a hotel complex or a building that is more institutional than residential- is generally used for non-residential purposes. …[A] building … for the elderly- whose units … are similar to those of an apartment building- cannot constitute an eligible non-residential building. ...

CRA responded: Subsection 116(5) … imposes a tax liability on a purchaser who acquires any “taxable Canadian property” from a non-resident person. Paragraph 98(1)(c) … does not deem the partnership interest to be disposed to a purchaser. ... Accordingly … subsection 116(5) … will not apply to a cessation of a partnership subject to paragraph 98(1)(c)…. ...

30 October 2008 External T.I. 2006-0198381E5 F- Disposition d'un BUP- application de l'article 42-- summary under Paragraph 42(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 42- Subsection 42(1)- Paragraph 42(1)(b) payment of claim re latent defect in principal residence generated a s. 42 capital loss – that was denied by s. 40(2)(g)(iii) In the year following the disposition of the taxpayer’s principal residence, the taxpayer paid an amount to the purchaser of the property following the latter's sending of a formal notice of default relating to latent defects in the property. CRA stated: [T]he amount paid … as compensation for latent defects in the property represents an expense incurred or made as consideration for warranties, covenants or other conditional or contingent obligations under section 42. However, this amount relates to the disposition of … a personal-use property for which a loss is deemed to be nil … by virtue of subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii). ...

CRA responded: Based on … subsection 96(1), the CRA's practice is to treat a partnership as a person and a taxpayer when calculating income at the partnership level under Division B of Part I …. … [A] partnership would generally be considered a "taxpayer" for the purposes of subsections 51(1), 85.1(1) and 86(1) and would therefore be entitled to rely on the rules contained therein …. ...

CRA responded: Based on … subsection 96(1), the CRA's practice is to treat a partnership as a person and a taxpayer when calculating income at the partnership level under Division B of Part I …. … [A] partnership would generally be considered a "taxpayer" for the purposes of subsections 51(1), 85.1(1) and 86(1) and would therefore be entitled to rely on the rules contained therein …. ...

CCRA noted that “it is the net loss or income determined under the Act that is … attributed” pursuant to s. 74.1(1), so that “the interest expense paid by Ms. A … will be taken into account in determining the loss or income to be attributed to her spouse … pursuant to subsection 74.1(1)” – but that s. 245(1) might be determined to apply. ...

. … 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 …. ...

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 …. ...