Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

11 January 2010 External T.I. 2009-0340591E5 F- Specified class- 256(1.1) of the Act-- summary under Paragraph 256(1.1)(d) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 256- Subsection 256(1.1)- Paragraph 256(1.1)(d) s. 256(1.1)(d) must be met throughout the period the shares were outstanding – but can cleanse with s. 51 exchange Class A shares of the corporation were issued in three different years (Years 1, 4 and 13). The annual rate of dividend on such shares (expressed as a percentage of the consideration for which they were issued) of 6% was higher than the prescribed rate of interest at the time of the issuance of the shares in Years 1 and 4 – although the corporation amended its articles after Year 4 and before Year 13 to reduce the dividend rate to 1%, which was the prescribed rate in Year 13 and less than the prescribed rate in Years 1 and 4. ...

X’s 500 preferred shares is therefore $318,182 …= $350,000/$495,000…X $450,000… and the safe income that reasonably contributes to the $145,000 inherent capital gain on Ms. X’s original 50 common shares is $131,818… = $145,000/$495,000 X $450,000…. ...

. … The amount received by the employee from the CSST, reported on the T5007 slip, is taxable pursuant to paragraph 56(1)(v) …. ...

CRA indicated that on the disposition by the children to Newco for $0.5M of their common shares of Holdco acquired for $0.5M, the aggregate ACB to them of such shares would not have been reduced pursuant to s. 84.1(2)(a.1)(ii) (before any GAAR application), stating: [N]o part of the aggregate ACB to the children of the common shares of the capital stock of Holdco would be attributable to the capital gains deduction claimed by A … on the crystallization transactions … [given] that, by the application of paragraph 85(1)(g), the entire amount of the capital gain realized by A and in respect of which he would have claimed a capital gains deduction pursuant to section 110.6 would have been attributed to the preferred shares of the capital stock of Holdco. ...

The result in the amended return for Holdco would be that there would be federal tax payable in respect of the application of subsection 55(2) of $193,333 ($1,000,000 * 50% * 38 2/3%, of which $153,333 could be recovered in the event of a possible dividend payment by Holdco of at least $399,999). ...

CRA first indicated: [W]here a person’s worldwide income is subject to a particular Contracting State’s full taxing jurisdiction but that Contracting State’s domestic law does not levy tax on the person’s taxable income … we will generally accept that the person is a resident of that Contracting State unless the arrangement is abusive … [e.g., it] is placed within the taxing jurisdiction of the particular Contracting State in order to gain treaty benefits in a manner that does not create any material economic nexus to that Contracting State…. ...

A under subparagraph (e)(i) of … “excluded amount” …. CRA then addressed an example where, in Year 1, Opco pays a $1M dividend to Investco and Investco then invests that dividend in shares of publicly-traded corporations. ...

An inter vivos trust (the “Trust”), holding 600 shares of Xco (a CCPC with a bond portfolio) with a nominal ACB and PUC of $600 and an FMV of $1,200,000, distributed those shares equally to its “Beneficiaries” (A, B, C and D – as well as E and F, who were brothers and cousins of the others). By virtue of an election by the trust pursuant to s. 107(2.001), s. 107(2.1) applied to this distribution, so that Trust realized deemed proceeds of $1,200.000 (resulting in a taxable capital gain of $99,950 being allocated to each Beneficiary under s. 104(21)), each Beneficiary was deemed to have acquired 100 shares at a cost of $200,000, and each Beneficiary disposed of the beneficiary’s capital interest in the Trust for proceeds of $100, which under s. 107(1)(a) had a deemed ACB equal to the cost amount of the distributed shares of $100 – so that no gain was realized on the disposition of each such capital interest. ...

CCRA indicated: Scenario 1 – s. 12(1)(g) would apply. Scenario 2- IT-462, para. 5(d), the $100,000 minimum amount is an amount that the taxpayer has become or may become entitled to receive for the purposes of para. ... Scenario 3 – S. 12(1)(g) would not apply if the $400,000 maximum amount equals the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale, even though this maximum may subsequently be reduced in the event that the total fees collected over the four years do not reach this maximum. ...

. … According to our analysis … Municipality and City were not agents of the Quebec government, nor were they entities controlled by that government. ...