Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

After referring to para. 15, of the 2014 OECD commentary to Article 10, which stated inter alia that “[a]s a general rule … the term “capital” … should be understood as it is understood in company law,’ CRA stated: Accordingly, the stated capital of the Class A preferred shares of Canco held by IsraeliCo is the amount that should be used for the purpose of determining if the conditions in Article 10(2)(a) of the Treaty are met. ...

This letter represents a change to CRA’s position … [in 2008-0297161E5] …. ...

Its CCA claim for 2025 would be calculated as follows: Capital cost $20M AII per Reg. 1100(2) – A- (c)(ii) (i.e., 1/2 X $20M) $10M Subtotal $30M CCA (50% Class 43.2 rate) $15M The “clean tech” ITC under s. 127.45(1) for 2027 would be 20% of the capital cost of $20M, or $4M. ... The CCA claim for 2027 would consist of a further $0.25M for the Class 43.2 property plus CCA regarding the $10M Class 43.1 acquisition calculated as follows: Capital cost $10M AII per Reg. 1100(2) – A- (b)(iii) (i.e., 5/6 X $10M) $8.33M Subtotal $18.33M CCA (30% Class 43.2 rate) $5.5M The clean tech ITC for 2027 would be 20% of the capital cost of $10M, or $2M. ...

. … [T]he phrase “return of premium” may be an accurate description of the maximum amount received by the Appellant upon the expiry of the term but it is misleading for the following reason. ... What the insurer paid as a benefit upon the expiry of the term was not, in a business sense or in an income tax sense, any part of the premiums for life insurance. … It was part of the insurer’s earnings. ...

Does the application of s. 55(2) to the deemed dividend received by each corporation, which generates an addition to its RDTOH account and, therefore, generates a dividend refund to it and associated Part IV tax on the deemed dividend paid by it to the other corporation, engage the exclusion from s. 55(2) for dividends which are subject to Part IV tax – or does the Part IV tax exclusion not apply so that s. 55(2) applies to the full amount of the deemed dividend received by each corporation? ... The application of subsection 55(2) in that case did not engage any circular calculation. … Moreover, the fact of calculating the RDTOH account at the end of a taxation year of each corporation in such a situation…involving cross redemptions and thus cross dividends, entails circular calculations by them of their respective RDTOH, dividend refunds and Part IV tax. ...

Consequently, even if each of the notional properties is a separate property … the notional properties would all fall into the same class which includes the property so disposed of. If at the end of a taxation year there is still property (including notional property) that is included in this class, no terminal loss will be deductible from the taxpayer's business or property income … pursuant to paragraph 20(16)(b). ...

Would s. 55(2) apply if proportional portions of the Class B preferred shares were redeemed simultaneously (or, alternatively, sequentially on the same day – Holdco’s shares being redeemed first)? ... If so “the deemed dividend paid pursuant to subsection 84(3) on the redemption of the Class B preferred shares held by Holdco … would technically be subject to subsection 55(2).” ...

7 September 2016 External T.I. 2014-0563781E5- Articles 10 and 11 of Canada-UK Treaty-- summary under Article 10 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 10 limited partners generally do not have control over a company’s voting power/an over-10% limited partner is considered to “indirectly” own over 10% of an LP subsidiary A UK corporation (“GP Co”) is the general partner (with a 1% interest) of a UK limited partnership which is fiscally transparent for UK purposes and a partnership for ITA purposes (“UK LP” – all of whose partners are non-residents), and the Limited Partners include LP1 and LP3, which provide benefits under a “recognized pension plan” (as defined in Art. 10, para. 4 of the Canada-UK Treaty) and own 7% and 11% partnership interests, and LP2, a UK corporation owning a 19% partnership interest. ... CRA responded: Issue 1… The 5% withholding rate under subparagraph (2)(a) of Article 10 of the Treaty applies if the beneficial owner of the dividend “is a company which controls, directly or indirectly, at least 10 per cent of the voting power in the company paying the dividends.” … [O]nly GP Co would be considered to control directly or indirectly at least 10% of the voting power in Holdco unless the partnership agreement specifically provided the limited partners with the ability to vote on the shares of Holdco. ...

24 March 2017 External T.I. 2016-0662381E5 F- Control- unanimous shareholders agreement-- summary under Subparagraph 251(5)(b)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 251- Subsection 251(5)- Paragraph 251(5)(b)- Subparagraph 251(5)(b)(ii) no application if non-resident under USA cannot control board decision to redeem residents’ shares – applies if automatic redemption requirement The only voting and participating shares of a Canadian corporation ("Opco") are held 50% by a non-resident, and 50% by three Canadian residents. ... Situation 5 [I]t would be necessary to determine whether the non-resident had the right to require Opco to acquire or cancel the shares in its capital stock if it did not effect the required purchase for cancellation, or if the non-resident had control over the triggering of an event that would entail an obligation to purchase for cancellation. … The non-resident would be deemed by s. 251(5)(b) to own 100% of the Opco voting shares (since the other shareholders could be defaulted shareholders), so that the directors' designation and appointment clause would no longer preclude the non-resident from exercising control of Opco. ...

XXV(1) or (5) of the Canada – U.S. Treaty A U.S.-resident limited liability company (“Parentco LLC”), which does not carry on business in Canada, wholly owns U.S. ... XXV of the Canada – U.S. Treaty? Would the response be different if the Subco LLCs instead amalgamated with Parentco LLC? ...