Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

24 January 2019 External T.I. 2016-0651291E5- Revised PHSP position- Self-insured plan-- summary under Private Health Services Plan Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Private Health Services Plan measuring compliance with the 90% METC-eligible expense test For insured and self-insured private health services plans (PHSPs), what are the tax consequences if not all or substantially all of the actual amounts paid under the plan are for medical expenses that are eligible for the medical expense tax credit (METC) – and do different considerations apply to a self-insured health care spending accounts (HCSA) which sets a ceiling on the amounts that can be claimed under the plan? ... The actual benefits paid to employees in the year are not considered …. ...

…This general position also extends to SAR plans that include a dividend equivalent feature … provided that (i) the dividend equivalents are credited in the form of additional units, and (ii) the eventual settlement in respect of the dividend equivalents is on the same basis and timeline as provided for under the plan for the whole unit. ... (k) exception: where (i) the units granted constitute a “right to receive a bonus or similar payment” (which we would generally expect to be the case for a SAR plan), and (ii) the dividend equivalent component is redeemed within the same three-year window that applies to the main component of the unit …. ...

CRA responded negatively: [A]ny income arising from the application of the deemed disposition rules in subsections 104(4) to 104(5.2), on the death of the relevant beneficiary, would be subject to taxation in the trust unless a [valid] joint election … [is] filed in accordance with paragraph 104(13.4)(b.1). [The] Technical Notes … [state], “Paragraph 104(13.4)(b) deems the trust's income for the particular year to have become payable to the particular beneficiary in the particular year, with the result that all of the trust's income for the particular year is required by subsection 104(13) to be included in computing the particular beneficiary's income for the beneficiary's taxation year (i.e., the beneficiary's final taxation year) in which the particular year ends.” ...

CRA stated: [T]he trust’s total charitable gifts for the Death-Date Year will include the eligible amount of the gift of capital property made by the trust in the Post-Death Year pursuant to clause (c)(ii)(C) …. ... However, the Variable B amount does not include the taxable capital gain, if any, from the deemed disposition … by the trust in the Death-Date Year resulting from the death of the individual beneficiary. ...

. … [but here] no [such] deduction would be available …. The s. 56(1)(a)(i)(C.1) exemption would be unavailable. ...

When the annuitant died, the RRIF trust’s tax-exempt status was extended consistently with s. 146.3(6.2) – B and s. 146.3(3.1) until the end of the year immediately following the year of death (i.e., until the end of 2019), with the trust thereafter becoming taxable. However, the RRIF trust may claim a deduction in computing its income for any income earned after such exempt period that is actually paid to a beneficiary of the trust – so that the RRIF trust can fully deduct in computing its 2020 income any income it earned in 2020 that was paid to the spouse’s estate. ...

CRA summarized the rules under s. 118.1(5.1)(b) and s. 118.1(1) – charitable gift – para. ...

., strength or porosity).” various materials suggested that the purpose to the provision was “the search for, or discovery of, the minerals in the ground,” and that expenses related to “external factors, for example the cost of bringing a product to purchasers, including marketing and distribution costs … or to the overall assessment of economic viability through a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study, extend well beyond the focused nature of an incentive targeted at the activity of mineral exploration.” CRA concluded: [E]xpenses that qualify for CEE do not … include expenses for determining the economic viability of a mineral resource if those expenses do not relate to a determination of the natural (e.g., physical, chemical or mechanical) characteristics of the mineral resource. ...

., over 50%) in connection with, or in the course of, the employment in order for a reduction under the standby formula in s. 6(2) to be available, and that s. 6(2.3) deems an employee who used an automobile more than 50% of the distance driven for business purposes in 2019 to have done the same in 2020 and 2021, CRA stated: [S]ubsection 6(2.3) of the Act which explicitly makes reference to the “taxpayer”: “…if the taxpayer met the conditions … for the 2019 taxation year in respect of an automobile…” As such, the business usage of another taxpayer (i.e., the employee who held the employment position in 2019) cannot be used by the current employee to determine their eligibility for the reduced standby charge in 2020 and 2021. Further, as the current employee did not have use of an employer-provided automobile in 2019, the conditions of subsection 6(2.3) of the Act would not be met (i.e., the employee was not provided with an automobile by the same employer in 2019) …. ...

(k) exception, CRA stated: As we had assumed in … 2020-0864831I7 that the hypothetical Canco’s fiscal year was a calendar year, we did not intend to change our longstanding position regarding deferred bonuses (such as full-value RSUs) payable by a corporate employer with an off-calendar fiscal year. ... Since the service period, the employer’s fiscal year-end date and the grant date are all important variables in ascertaining the application of the SDA rules, it cannot simply be assumed as a matter of fact that a grant of full-value RSUs that vest within three years from the end of the Grant Year will automatically fall within the paragraph (k) exception …. ...