Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

Notwithstanding Anson, CRA considered that where a Canadian-resident member’s share of LLC income is subject to U.S. tax but the income is not distributed, no Canadian foreign tax credit will be available in the year the income is earned – nor in a subsequent year given that s. 126(1) does not permit the carryforward of the foreign tax. ... In particular, after noting that the OECD Commentary on Art. 23B of the Model Convention “expressly contemplates that states may impose timing restrictions on claiming foreign tax credits,” and that where this is so “these countries…would be expected to seek other ways…to relieve the double taxation which might otherwise arise in [such] cases,” CRA stated: In the case of Canada, such “other ways … to relieve the double taxation” include deductions allowed under subsections 20(11) and 20(12) of the Act. ...

., $673,700/$2,873,695 * $131,400 = $30,805), multiplied by the 3X dividend refund rate (to produce $92,415) multiplied in turn by the ratio of the s. 84(3) dividend received (of $529,785) to the total dividends received by Holdco (of $673,700). ...

. … Thus, if the Equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of the existing photovoltaic equipment, it would likely be considered to be “related equipment”…. …The test [of whether the Equipment is a fixture] asks whether an article is attached to another property to effect a permanent and substantial improvement of that other property or to enable more complete enjoyment and use of the first article. … In a situation where there is a dual or multiple purposes, the courts have considered what the dominant purpose of the annexation is [citing Hansen, 1998 ABQB 1103]. ...

. … [T]he OETC will not necessarily be denied on the basis that the individual has not actually been outside Canada or at a place of employment outside Canada for the entire period of more than six consecutive months, provided that during that entire period, the individual performs substantially all of the duties of his or her employment outside Canada. ... The determination is made by comparing the actual time an individual spent performing the qualifying duties to the total time spent performing all duties during that same period. … For example, if an individual was employed by a specified employer under a single contract that included certain duties performed in Canada and those duties were performed at the beginning and end of the contract, the qualifying period could include those periods in Canada as long as the individual performed all or substantially all of the duties of his or her employment outside Canada. ...

B would be able to provide sufficient, clear, and unambiguous evidence with his tax return that the $25 of foreign tax paid by … AB Partnership was computed by reference to his treaty status with Country X and that Mr. ... In addition to the evidence of payment of the foreign tax discussed in Folio S5-F2-C1, the partner making such a non-pro rata claim should provide the name, Canadian tax ID number (if any), country of residence, nature and amount of the partnership interest, calculated income allocation and allocated foreign withholding tax amount of each partner – together with evidence demonstrating that the withholding was computed by reference to each partner’s treaty status. ...

. … Where there is a sale of foreign currency investments other than funds on deposit ("investments"), the CRA's position is that the gain or loss on the sale of the investments will be computed by converting the adjusted cost base and the proceeds of disposition of the investments into Canadian currency using the exchange rate prevailing at the relevant time. Specifically, the CRA's position is that the adjusted cost base is to be converted into Canadian currency using the exchange rate prevailing at the time of the acquisition of the subject investments, and the proceeds of disposition of the investments are to be converted into Canadian currency using the exchange rate prevailing at the time of disposition of those investments. … We do not allow an individual investor to use the method you advocate that would delay recognition of the foreign currency fluctuation. ...

. … [I[f the facts indicate that the taxpayer … is otherwise a common carrier, that the taxpayer is engaged in all aspects necessary for the proper operation of a business providing a transportation service for the transportation of goods (other than the transportation itself) such as rate setting, billing, advertising, the establishment of service standards, the establishment of drop-off points, the receipt of orders from shipper customers, and that the taxpayer remains liable to both shipper and receiver customers, we could conclude that the taxpayer is engaged in the operation of motor vehicles as a common carrier for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Article VIII of the Convention. ...

Upon their return to Canada, the wife bought a house in 1992 ("Immovable2 ") which immediately became her principal residence, but remained as a co-owner of Immovable1. ... CRA assumed that the wife will designate Immovable2 as her principal residence for the years 1995 to 2006 inclusive (as well as 1992, 1993, and 1994) and that, as a result, the husband must designate the same property for the years 1995 to 2006 – in which case, Immovable1 would be treated as a capital property subject to the change-in-use rules. ...

However, a loan granted under the (the program] … is guaranteed, in some respects, by the Farm and Forestry Loan Insurance Fund (the "Fund"). … [W]e understand that what is guaranteed by the Fund is different from what is covered by the life and disability insurance policies purchased from the financial institution. ...

After noting that in such a situation “it is not subsection 15(1) that the CRA would consider applying if the FMV of the freeze preferred shares was less than the FMV of the exchanged common shares, but rather subsection 51(2),” and that the price adjustment clause was not one described in IT-169 as it addressed adjusting the consideration received rather than the purchase price, and that the clause as described “would not be acceptable because … it did not provide for the necessary measures to settle any difference between the FMV of the consideration in relation to the transferred assets, should the preferred shares be redeemed before the CRA contests the FMV of the preferred shares,” CRA stated: The CRA would generally agree to recognize a clause for adjustment to the consideration and not apply subsection 51(2), where the facts (including the contract) evinced that the parties actually intended to deal in the shares at their FMV and established the FMV of the preferred shares for the purposes of the arrangement, by a fair and reasonable method, and the relevant adjustments provided for in the adjustment clause were effected by the parties where the FMV of the preferred shares was less than the FMV of the common shares. … ...