Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

. … Paragraph (b) of that definition provides that, on the disposition of the shares, all or substantially all of the fair market value of the property, described in subparagraph (a)(iv) of the definition, owned by the corporation, is attributable to inter alia property that was used principally in the course of carrying on the business of farming in Canada by a person or partnership described in subparagraph (a)(i) ….... ... Consequently … in order to meet the test set out in paragraph (b) … it is necessary to consider the use of the property throughout the period that the taxpayer was the owner. ...

CRA stated: [A]ssuming that after the acquisition of the shares, Subco would be merged with OPCO by way of an amalgamation or winding-up, we note that the Given Situation would be similar to the example given in paragraph 4 of Supplement 1 … IC 88-2. The CRA's position is generally not to apply subsection 245(2) in situations similar or identical to [such] example …. However, if Subco were not merged with OPCO following the acquisition of the shares, other elements may have to be considered …. ...

. … Legal owners are generally entitled to enforce their ownership rights against all other persons. By contrast, the term “beneficial ownership” is used to describe the type of ownership of a property by a person who is entitled to the use and benefit of the property whether or not that person has concurrent legal ownership. … In most cases, the same person has both legal and beneficial ownership of a property. …[See] S1-F3-C2 …. [A] reporting entity would typically be the owner (including a beneficial owner) of the property whether such ownership is jointly with another person or otherwise and irrespective of the financial contribution made by the reporting entity towards the acquisition. ...

Thus … the application of these provisions is likely to result in double taxation for the taxpayer for any taxation year in which subsection 75(2) applies or for a taxation year subsequent thereto, on the disposition of all or part of the taxpayer's capital interest or under subsection 40(3). [However] … IT-369R [, para. 10, provides] that income subject to the application of subsection 75(2) is not otherwise included in the income of a beneficiary or trust, as the case may be. … [T]he CRA could extend this position so that no reduction to the ACB of a beneficiary's capital interest would be made by virtue of subparagraph 53(2)(h)(i.1). ...

(b) of the definition apply – and would the answer change if the services provided by YCo to XCo were performed by an employee working full time on maintenance work for XCo, an employee working 50% of the time as a receptionist for XCo and another employee working 50% of the time doing secretarial work for X Co? CRA responded: The fact that the services rendered to XCo by YCo require the full-time employment of two employees is an indication that the exception in paragraph (b) … may apply since it may be reasonable to consider that XCo would have required six full-time employees if the services had not been rendered by YCo. … In the second situation … we would need to determine how many full-time employees XCo would hire to replace the services provided by YCo. ...

. … The expenses covered by our position … include expenses that a parent may be obligated to pay as a result of a parental obligation. ... Further, in that situation, the parents would not be taxed pursuant to subsection 105(1) by virtue of the payment of those expenses by the trust. … Among the examples mentioned, we are of the view that tuition fees for the education of a minor beneficiary or fees paid at a summer camp attended by the minor beneficiary would relate to an expense incurred for the child, the payment of which, subject to the other conditions stated in Income Tax Technical News, No. 11, would be considered to be payment of income to the child. On the other hand, with respect to the acquisition of a car, one would have to examine the relevant facts to determine whether the acquisition is for the benefit of the minor child or for the benefit of another person. … ...

. … [T]he exemption threshold of a taxpayer at a particular time in respect of a particular flow-through share class of property is a pool of the actual cost to the taxpayer of flow-through shares issued to the taxpayer on or after the taxpayer’s “fresh-start date” (as defined in section 54 of the Act), less prior capital gains of the taxpayer from the disposition of shares of the class.... ... However, it is necessary for the taxpayer to have acquired a flow-through share (or certain partnership interests …) in order for a taxpayer to have an exemption threshold in respect of a flow-through share class of property to which subsection 40(12) of the Act would apply. Accordingly, where a taxpayer has no exemption threshold … with respect to a flow-through share class of property, the deemed capital gain from a disposition of a capital property included in that flow-through share class of property referred to in subsection 40(12) would likely be zero …. ...

. … [W]here a property is a capital property, in the absence of plans to proceed with the development of a subdivision, making application to the relevant authority for approval of a plan to subdivide would not, in and by itself, cause the property to be considered as being converted to inventory. Where this is the case, the entire amount of a forfeited deposit would be considered capital in nature …. … [If] a conversion of the land from a capital property to a trading property has taken place … [t]he taxpayer would have a notional capital gain on the date of conversion which would not be considered to give rise to taxable capital gains until the year in which the lots were actually sold. ...

Furthermore, he acquired the items over a period of 35 years …. If Mr. ... (However … it would have to be clear that the trades and sales were casual and were made to acquire new items and not for profit). Furthermore … it does not appear that this would be an adventure or concern in the nature of trade …. ...

. … 9530937 is no longer valid. … [T]he amount of their union dues paid in 2004 reduces or annuls the deduction provided for in subparagraph 8(1)(i)(iv) in computing their income. For those members who received an amount in excess of their 2004 union dues … the excess portion must be included in their income pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(j) in the year it is received. … [I]ndividuals who are retired or have changed employers and who received a refund of union dues in 2004, given that they were members of the union on December 31, 2001, must include the refund of dues pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(j) in their 2004 income. ...