Search - 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致
Results 461 - 470 of 78914 for 报销 发票日期 消费日期不一致
Conference summary
7 October 2020 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable Q. 3, 2020-0851991C6 F - Shares Donation to a tax exempt entity & dividend -- summary under Subsection 129(1.2)
7 October 2020 APFF Financial Strategies and Instruments Roundtable Q. 3, 2020-0851991C6 F- Shares Donation to a tax exempt entity & dividend-- summary under Subsection 129(1.2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 129- Subsection 129(1.2) on an excepted gift of 10% of the shares of a CCPC to a public foundation and the shares’ redemption, s. 129(1.2) could deny the CCPC’s dividend refund In order to make a donation to a registered charity and public foundation (the "Donee"), a CCPC wholly-owned by Mr. ... Furthermore, the CRA took a similar approach in … 2016-0628181R3 by adding an opinion that any dividend … paid … on the shares of … the private corporation (Holdco) to the foundation (Foundation), which had previously acquired the shares as a result of the transfer of the shares by the testamentary spousal trust for the spouse of the deceased following the death of the spouse, would be considered not to be a taxable dividend, with the result that subsection 129(1. 2) would apply …. Whether the Purpose Test is satisfied is a question of fact that can only be resolved on the basis of the facts and circumstances …. ...
News of Note post
Ahmar – before Strong Forming had to cease operations. In affirming that Mr. Ahmar had not made out the due diligence defence to director liability for failure to remit, Mactavish JA stated: … Mr. Ahmar made the conscious decision to have Strong Forming defer payment of its HST debt, and to use these revenues to satisfy other obligations in the hopes of turning the company’s financial position around. … … Buckingham … state[ed] that the defence under section 323 “should not be used to encourage such failures by allowing a due diligence defence for directors who finance the activities of their corporation with Crown monies on the expectation that the failures to remit could eventually be cured”…. ...
Decision summary
Revenue & Customs v Burlington Loan Management DAC, [2024] UKUT 152 -- summary under Article 12
Revenue & Customs v Burlington Loan Management DAC, [2024] UKUT 152-- summary under Article 12 Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Income Tax Conventions- Article 12 Irishco’s purchasing a UK interest claim from Caymansco at a tax arbitrage price did not have Treaty-reduction as a main purpose BLM was a substantial Irish-resident investment company, which started acquiring proved claims in the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE" – a UK resident) in 2011 and came to own 443 such claims. ... HMRC denied BLM’s refund claim on the basis of Art. 12(5) of that Treaty, which excluded the application of Art. 12 “if it was the main purpose or one of the main purposes of any person concerned with the … assignment … to take advantage of … Article [12].” ... “It was appropriate for the FTT to have had regard to the fact that there were potential purchasers of the SAAD Claim for whom UK WHT would not have been an issue and for whom the UK-Ireland treaty would not have been relevant [e.g., UK purchasers with tax losses] … who were prepared to pay a price higher than 80% of the interest on the SAAD Claim for reasons wholly unconnected to the UK-Ireland treaty” (para. 78). ...
Decision summary
Revenue & Customs v Burlington Loan Management DAC, [2024] UKUT 152 -- summary under Article 7(1)
Revenue & Customs v Burlington Loan Management DAC, [2024] UKUT 152-- summary under Article 7(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Treaties- Multilateral Instrument- Article 7- Article 7(1) accessing Irish-UK treaty dividend-withholding reduction was not abusive given that not a treaty-shopping or conduit transaction BLM was a substantial Irish-resident investment company, which had been acquiring proved claims in the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE" – a UK resident) since 2011. ... HMRC denied BLM’s refund claim on the basis of Art. 12(5) of that Treaty, which excluded the application of Art. 12 “if it was the main purpose or one of the main purposes of any person concerned with the … assignment … to take advantage of … Article [12].” ... “It was appropriate for the FTT to have had regard to the fact that there were potential purchasers of the SAAD Claim for whom UK WHT would not have been an issue and for whom the UK-Ireland treaty would not have been relevant [e.g., UK purchasers with tax losses] … who were prepared to pay a price higher than 80% of the interest on the SAAD Claim for reasons wholly unconnected to the UK-Ireland treaty” (para. 78). ...
Decision summary
Agence du revenu du Québec v. Structures GB Ltée, 2025 QCCA 134 -- summary under Rectification & Rescission
Structures GB Ltée, 2025 QCCA 134-- summary under Rectification & Rescission Summary Under Tax Topics- General Concepts- Rectification & Rescission corporate reorganization documents could not be rectified to correct for an unforeseen Pt. ... (Canada), so that the rectification order was reversed, the Court stated (at paras. 25, 29-30, 36, TaxInterpretations translation): If the agreement is consistent with what the parties agreed to but simply produces unforeseen tax consequences, due to an error by the tax planners in the design of the tax planning, rectification cannot be granted. … The parties had not planned any specific entitlement [“prestation”] aimed at ensuring that Structures and the holding companies were connected throughout the 31 stages of the corporate reorganization of Structures. … … Mr. Côté, the tax specialist who conceptualized the reorganization, … affirmed that maintaining connectedness was not the object of the transaction, which was to crystallize as much CGD as possible.... ...
Technical Interpretation - External summary
25 January 2018 External T.I. 2017-0709241E5 - Subsections 125(3.2) & 125(5.1) -- summary under Subsection 125(5.1)
25 January 2018 External T.I. 2017-0709241E5- Subsections 125(3.2) & 125(5.1)-- summary under Subsection 125(5.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125- Subsection 125(5.1) business limit is ground first based on taxable capital before it can be assigned Does the assignment of the business limit under s. 125(3.2) occur before or after the business limit reduction in s. 125(5.1)? After noting that under s. 125(5.1) “the business limit … is reduced on a straight-line basis if the total of the taxable capital of the CCPC (employed in Canada) and, if applicable, of [associated] corporations … exceeds $10 million … [so that] once the taxable capital … reaches $15 million its business limit would be zero,” CRA stated:. ...
Technical Interpretation - External summary
30 October 2003 External T.I. 2003-0037465 F - Subsections 40(3.3) & 40(3.4) -- summary under Subsection 40(3.4)
30 October 2003 External T.I. 2003-0037465 F- Subsections 40(3.3) & 40(3.4)-- summary under Subsection 40(3.4) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 40- Subsection 40(3.4) non-application of s. 40(3.4) where taxpayer acquires then immediately disposes of an additional block/ application of formula where it partially dips into existing block A taxpayer described in s. 40(3.3)(a), which on January 1, 200X had held 100 common shares of Pubco for at least three months, acquired an additional 50 shares on June 1, 200X, and on June 2, 200X, disposed of those additional shares to an unaffiliated person, sustaining a capital loss.. ... CCRA indicated that although s. 40(3.4) would apply, under its administrative position, only 1/2 of the taxpayer's loss would be considered to be nil under s. 40(3.4)(a) under the formula: Deemed nil loss = (the lesser of S, P and B) / S x L where S = the number of shares disposed of at that time 100 P = the number of shares acquired during the period described in paragraph 40(3.3)(b) 50 B = the number of shares remaining at the end of that period 50 L = the loss on the disposition otherwise determined And therefore: Deemed nil loss = 50 / 100 x L CCRA indicated that s. 40(3.4) would apply to the entire loss arising under a second variation, under which, on June 1, 200X, the taxpayer disposed of 50 of the 100 Pubco common shares and on June 2, 200X, acquired an additional 50 Pubco common shares of Pubco. ...
Technical Interpretation - External summary
17 February 2017 External T.I. 2016-0662341E5 - Airline passes – retired and current employees -- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(a)
17 February 2017 External T.I. 2016-0662341E5- Airline passes – retired and current employees-- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(a) use of space-confirmed, but not standby, passes by airline employees is taxable Will S2-F3-C2 be revised to reflect the administrative policies in IT-470R, paras. 42, 44 respecting standby airline passes provided to current airline employees (“current employees”) and standby and space-confirmed airline passes provided to retired airline employees (“retired employees”)? ... …[S]tandby and space-confirmed airline passes used by retired employees are not taxed. … S2-F3-C2 … provide[s] CRA’s interpretive positions, not administrative policies. … The CRA webpage, Benefits and allowances, will be updated to include these administrative policies. ...
News of Note post
19 February 2018- 9:19pm RCF IV – Federal Court of Australia finds that gains of U.S. limited partners from sales of an Australian resource company were not Treaty exempt but were not TCP-type gains Email this Content Two Caymans investment LPs (“RCF IV” and RCF V”) whose limited partners were mostly U.S. residents, realized gains from the disposal of shares of significant shareholdings in a TSX-listed Australian corporation (Talison Lithium) which, through a grandchild corporation, held mining leases in Australia and carried out an operation there of mining lithium ores and processing them. ... Summaries of Resource Capital Fund IV LP v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCA 41 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 3, Art. 13, s. 248(1) – taxable Canadian property – (d), s. 115(1)(a)(ii), s. 9 – capital gain. v. profit – shares, General Concepts – stare decisis, s. 152(1). ...
13 December 2013- 10:44am Angle Energy – Bellatrix merger contemplates unilateral s. 85 elections Email this Content Angle Energy shareholders have sold their share to Bellatrix for cash or Bellatrix shares (but with the overall cash/share split fixed at 22%/78%), followed by an amalgamation of Bellatrix, Angle and an Angle subsidiary (ARI). ... Summary of Joint Circular of Angle Energy and Bellatrix Exploration under Mergers & Acquisitions – Mergers – Shares for Shares or Cash. ...