Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致

James … 66 DTC 5241 …. Subsection 164(4.1) … does not … prevent a taxpayer from changing the computation of the taxpayer’s loss carryforward from a previous year … consequent on a favourable decision received by another taxpayer. ...

In finding that the penalty could qualify as a “child care expense,” the Directorate stated: [T]he expression “expense incurred … for the purpose of providing … for an eligible child … child care services …” is sufficiently flexible to include contract termination fees where such fees were provided for in the initial agreement between an individual and a daycare centre that set out the commitments and obligations of each party. ...

. … [W]e have assumed that the rental income is property income to the non-resident person rather than business income (in which case the rental income would not be subject to Part XIII tax but rather to Part I tax). … [T]he services provided by [the property manager] o the lessees do not appear to be sufficiently important to characterize the rents as business income (see … IT-434R and … Walsh … 65 DTC 5293 (Ex. ...

The Directorate responded: [S]ubsection 246(1) is generally a provision of subsidiary application since it must be shown that the value of the benefit is not otherwise included (for example, by virtue of paragraph 6(1)(a) or subsection 15(1)) in computing the taxpayer's income …. On the other hand … Massicotte … held that the Minister of National Revenue may assess a taxpayer solely on the basis of section 246 despite the fact that paragraph 6(1)(a) could have been argued …. … Thus, while the Minister may invoke subsection 246(1) as the sole ground for assessment, we believe it is preferable that the assessment refer- if the facts of the situation are appropriate- to the provisions of specific application. … [T]herefore … the assessment should rely on paragraph 6(1)(a) and/or subsection 15(1) as the main grounds …. ...

ITRD will no longer consider any ruling requests pertaining to whether any given formula-based appreciation plan is a SDA, unless: i) the plan is of a type described in ATR-45 …; or ii) the ruling request pertains to whether one of the enumerated exceptions listed in the definition of SDA apply to the plan. … ITRD is increasingly concerned that the financial metrics that underlie formula-based appreciation plans may be susceptible to manipulation … [which] can be used to obfuscate the fact that a formula-based appreciation plan’s underlying purpose is to defer tax …. … [S]hare appreciation rights (“SAR”) plans … described in ATR-45 … [have] the following characteristics: The unit has no intrinsic value at the date of grant; The value of a unit is not guaranteed and may have a negative value after the date of grant; and The value of each unit at any particular time is determined by subtracting the FMV of a share of the employer at the date of grant from the FMV of a share of the employer at that particular time. ... This is because we consider such plans to be significantly less susceptible to manipulation …. … [O]ur decision to no longer consider ruling requests for formula-based appreciation plans does not mean that the CRA now considers all such plans to be SDAs. ...

XXIV(2)(a) is expressly “subject to the provisions of the law of Canada regarding the deduction from tax payable in Canada of tax paid in a territory outside Canada,” and stated: [T]his means that a Canadian resident is subject to the limitations on claiming a foreign tax credit found in the Canadian legislation, and more specifically in section 126, including a timing restriction on when a foreign tax credit may be claimed (see … 2015-0601781E5 ….) ... XIII(7) is not available … and the year of the Deemed Disposition … does not occur in the same year [as] … for U.S. income tax purposes … the Trust may not obtain a foreign tax credit in Canada for the U.S. taxes paid in a year subsequent to the year of the Deemed Disposition (assuming the Trust has insufficient income from other sources in the U.S. in the year the U.S. Property is considered by U.S. income tax laws to have been disposed) …. ...

The Directorate concluded that “ it would be difficult to argue that the distributions made by the trustee which are stated to be capital distributions in the memoranda of decisions … are required to be included in [her] income under subsection 104(13).” Before so concluding, the Directorate stated: [T]he trustee of a discretionary trust can normally choose whether to make a certain payment out of income or out of capital- at least, to the extent of the trust's income and capital. … In this case, [the resident beneficiary] is both an income beneficiary and a capital beneficiary and can receive either income or capital distributions in any taxation year. However, the trustee cannot change the true nature of an income distribution by merely considering it to be a capital distribution. … As stated in … 2000-0043847 … the amount of income to be included in a beneficiary's income under subsection 104(13) is the amount of the trust's income for tax purposes that has been distributed to the beneficiary. ...

The Directorate stated: [T]he term “reasonably attributable” … denotes … a direct causal connection … between the OCNP and the PE taking in account all the applicable facts of the case. … [Per] E9807035 … the taxpayer should attribute a portion of its gross revenues to each permanent establishment in recognition of the value of the ancillary services provided by that establishment. … [W]here a taxpayer has made an allocation under subsection 403(4) and the taxpayer’s approach is reasonable, the CRA should not require the taxpayer to use a different method of allocation. … [T]he allocation of the OCNP based on where the policies are underwritten … appears to be a reasonable method. Similarly, allocation of the OCNP on some other basis, such as where the contracts are negotiated or serviced … may also be reasonable …. ...

The Directorate responded: [T]he CRA … allows a taxpayer who owns two or more rental properties that are located in two or more locations other than the taxpayer's principal residence to deduct reasonable travel expenses incurred in collecting rents, supervising repairs, and managing the property. Generally, we consider that a taxpayer who owns a single rental property is not carrying on a business and, as a result, the taxpayer’s travel expenses are considered personal and therefore not deductible. … Benjamin … 54 DTC 357 … determined that travel expenses incurred by a taxpayer to attend to rental properties are personal expenses of the taxpayer. The CRA does, however, provide relief for a taxpayer's reasonable motor vehicle expenses incurred by the taxpayer to transport tools and materials to a rental property to perform all or part of the repair or maintenance work on the taxpayer’s rental property, provided that the property is located in the taxpayer's home area. … It should be noted that this policy does not provide relief for travel expenses to collect rents if the taxpayer has only one rental property and is not carrying on a business. ...

CRA stated: In the case of a corporation, some of whose activities are employee lease-out services, that is, that the employee's services are retained by that corporation but the employee's duties are performed, in whole or in part, for another organization …, it is necessary to determine whether the corporation is carrying on a separate business … because … the employment income of an Indian from each of the businesses of such a corporation is … a separate property for the purposes of … section 87 …. ... The place where the employee lives, the place of residence of the employer and the place where the duties of an employment are performed are usually important connecting factors …. Where the location from which the business is actually directed and administered is located on a reserve, the employer will generally be considered to reside on that reserve. … As we noted in Employee Leasing: Tax-Planning Arrangements Based on Section 87, the location of the employer on a reserve is not a connecting factor strong enough, on its own, to exempt the employment income from tax where an Indian is employed through an on-reserve employer but performs the duties of employment off-reserve. ...