Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

After noting 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. … Where there is a significant discrepancy between the FMV determined by the taxpayer for freeze preferred shares and the actual FMV, it usually demonstrates that the taxpayer had not made a genuine effort to determine the FMV of the shares [citing Guilder News and Wagner, 2001 DTC 5674 (FCA)]. ...

18 December 2017 External T.I. 2017-0714971E5 F- Application of subsection 55(2)-- summary under Paragraph 186(1)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 186- Subsection 186(1)- Paragraph 186(1)(b) s. 55(2) application does not reduce s. 186(1)(b) initially reported Pt IV tax 2017-0724071C6 indicated that where Holdco receives a dividend of $400,000 that was subject to Part IV tax of $153,333 (38.33% of $400,000) equalling the connected payer’s dividend refund and, in turn, pays a dividend to its individual shareholders resulting in a dividend refund (DR) of the Part IV tax – so that the dividend received by Holdco was subject to s. 55(2) there should be two returns filed by Holdco – one reporting the Part IV tax, and a second one reporting the capital gain under s. 55(2), thereby giving rise to refundable tax and an addition to Holdco’s RDTOH account which could only be used prospectively. ...

…[I]t appears … that the Policy could qualify as a superannuation or pension fund or plan. In [such] event … the income derived from it during a period of Canadian residence of the beneficiary should not be included in the calculation of his or her income to the extent that that it was not received by the beneficiary. ...

Instead “an ordinary meaning was intended to be given to the words ‘television’ and ‘broadcasting’ and … their meaning, under either domestic or international law, is broad enough to include the digital streaming of television content” – so that the applicable Treaty rate was 10%, not zero. ...

. … [T]he CRA does not intend to generally substitute its judgment of what would be considered a reasonable amount where the taxpayers have made a good faith attempt to do so …. ...

. … If that were the case, the vacant land held by [the first] corporation would not be assets used principally in an active business carried on primarily in Canada by the corporation for the purposes of the definition …. ...

Regarding Hospital A, it stated: The fact that a radiologist does not have a permanent work office at that hospital may serve as an indication but is not, in our view, a conclusive criterion …. [O]ne could conclude that Hospital A is a place of business for the radiologist since … the radiologist has a regular work schedule at both hospitals. ...

In addition … it may be possible … to apply subsection 18(12) to a business loss allocated to a partner by the partnership. ...

. … [T]he potential deduction resulting from the application of subsection 111(5.1) would affect not only the safe income on hand earned by the corporation during the period from January 1 to June 29, 2000 ($5,000 in your example), but all of the corporation's cumulative safe income on hand immediately before the "safe income determination time" (including the amount of $45,000 …). ...

However, CRA stated that there likely will be an SDA where the plan also provides that members can elect to reduce or forego future bonus entitlements and accrued vacation pay entitlements for additional allocations (of equal amounts) to the member’s account (to be paid out at the earliest of termination of employment, retirement or death) – stating that these additional features “appear to be primarily motivated by tax deferral considerations.” CRA similarly concluded that a Retirement Allowance Plan – under which notional contributions are allocated each month to an executive’s account of 7% of the executive’s monthly remuneration, plus a further one-time $125,000 notional contribution at the start of the plan, with the executive entitled, at the earlier of termination of employment or attaining 65, to the account balance as a lump sum, or in 10 annual instalments- also likely would constitute an SDA. ...