Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

24 January 2005 External T.I. 2004-0099471E5 F- Convention de retraite pour un actionnaire-employé-- summary under Salary Deferral Arrangement Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Salary Deferral Arrangement a significant reduction in bonus or salary matched by an RCA contribution likely suggests it instead is an SDA After noting that contributions by a corporation to an RCA would not be deductible in computing its income where the contributions related to services rendered by a shareholder-employee while self-employed and before the corporation’s incorporation, or to the extent that s. 67 applied, CRA turned to the question whether there would be an SDA if the corporation regularly reduced bonuses to a shareholder-employee by the amount of related contributions to the employee RCA for its employees, and stated: Where a plan or arrangement can qualify as both an RCA and an SDA, it will be treated as an SDA …. … [I]t can be assumed that, except in special circumstances, where a portion of an employee's salary or wages is deferred under an agreement, one of the main purposes is to defer the payment of taxes. … [W]here a significant portion of the salary or bonus to which a shareholder-employee is entitled for services rendered is reduced so as to be contributed to an RCA instead, the existence of the RCA could be questioned since the contribution made by the employer may not relate to benefits that are receivable at retirement. ...

After noting that Art. 909 states that "the price for any disposal of capital or its reinvestment [...] are capital [...]" ... It follows … that any person entitled to a capital gain or taxable capital gain resulting from the disposition of property held by a trust is a beneficiary under the trust within the meaning of subsection 248(25) and holds a "capital interest" in the trust. ...

Furthermore … the reasonableness of an employee using such a vehicle may be questioned. However, we agree … that the employer-corporation would not be subject to the restriction set out in paragraph 18(1)(r), which applies to the use of an automobile. On the other hand, it could be subject to the general restriction described in section 67 …. ...

. … [T]he time parents of children with juvenile diabetes spend monitoring the child's diet, preparing and selecting food, is not time spent providing therapeutic care. Furthermore, although controlling blood sugar levels is important for a person with diabetes, the time spent on this activity is not … time spent administering treatment. ... That activity does not usually last an average of 14 hours a week …. ...

6 November 2002 External T.I. 2002-0132395 F- Robot Class 10 Catégorie 10-- summary under Paragraph 10(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Schedules- Schedule II- Class 10- Paragraph 10(a) cost of remote-controlled duct-inspecting robot to be allocated between Class 10(a) (“automotive equipment” – which is broadly construed) and Class 8(j) (“radiocommunication equipment”) A person carries on a business of inspecting and maintaining ventilation and sewer system ducts using 4-wheeled robots to inspect ducts. ... Consequently, it seems that … it would be necessary to allocate the cost of the robot borne by the taxpayer between depreciable property in Class 10 and depreciable property in Class 8 …. ...

6 November 2002 External T.I. 2002-0132395 F- Robot Class 10 Catégorie 10-- summary under Paragraph 8(j) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Schedules- Schedule II- Class 8- Paragraph 8(j) cost of remote-controlled duct-inspecting robot to be allocated between Class 10(a) (“automotive equipment”) and Class 8(j) (“radiocommunication equipment” – informed by IA meaning of “radiocommunication”) A person carries on a business of inspecting and maintaining ventilation and sewer system duct using 4-wheeled robots to inspect ducts. ... Consequently, it seems that … it would be necessary to allocate the cost of the robot borne by the taxpayer between depreciable property in Class 10 and depreciable property in Class 8 …. ...

CCRA indicated: Amalco's first taxation year would … have begun on the first instant of April 17, 2000. … [C]ontrol of Amalco would be deemed to be acquired at the beginning of April 18, 2000 pursuant to subsection 256(9). In addition, Amalco's taxation year that would have commenced on April 17, 2000 would end at midnight on April 17, 2000, and Amalco would have a new taxation year commencing at the beginning of April 18, 2000. … Consequently, for the purposes of calculating Amalco's CDA, the dispositions [pursuant to s. 111(4)(e)] would occur in Amalco's taxation year beginning at the beginning of April 17, 2000 and ending at midnight on April 17, 2000. ...

If the terms of a valid EPSP were subsequently amended to remove the employer’s obligation to make contributions, the arrangement would no longer meet this requirement …. ... …[Whether] the arrangement continues as a salary deferral arrangement, retirement compensation arrangement or an employee benefit plan … is a question of fact …. ...

That is, employees are not required to pay the commission …. [Such] employees … receive a discount on services (i.e., the placement of insurance) by virtue of their employment. As the CRA’s administrative position concerning discounts on merchandise and commissions from personal purchases does not apply to discounts on services, such benefits are required to be included in employment income under paragraph 6(1)(a) …. ...

After noting that a single benefit was to be computed in respect of the benefit under ss. 6(1)(e) and 6(2), or under s. 6(1)(k), CRA stated: [W]here an individual holds more than one employment with different related corporations and the individual enjoys in the course of those employments for the same automobile a taxable benefit with respect to a reasonable standby charge for the automobile under paragraph 6(1)(e) and subsection 6(2), or an automobile operating expense benefit under paragraph 6(1)(k) … each of those benefits [must] be calculated and reported on an information slip by only one of the employers. … [T]he Agency would accept the reporting of those benefits by either Corporation A or Corporation B …. ...