Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

15 July 2021- 11:58pm 1455257 Ontario – Federal Court of Appeal notes that CRA cannot arbitrarily reject an s. 152(4)(b)(i) extension request and that s. 160 extends to post-transfer interest Email this Content The validity of a s. 160 assessment of the taxpayer turned in part on whether the affiliate from which the taxpayer had received a transfer of property in 2003 should be regarded as having had its taxable income for 2000 reduced by a portion of its non-capital loss for 2002 that the affiliate had not claimed because the taxpayer and the affiliate had not found out about that additional loss until 2011, when the taxpayer made an ATIP request following the s. 160 assessment of it. ... Noël C.J. also agreed with the Tax Court’s rejection of the taxpayer’s submission that given that the word “pour” used in the French version of s. 160(1)(e)(ii) was narrower than “in respect of” used in the English version, s. 160 did not extend to interest that had accrued on the tax payable subsequent to the 2003 transfer date, stating (at paras. 46-47): The phrase “in respect of” is broad and all encompassing … and the word “pour” in the French text can have a similarly broad meaning. … It can be seen that both texts can be read so as to capture interest that accrues on the transferor’s liability from the year of the transfer onwards. This aligns with the purpose of subsection 160(1) which is to allow for the collection of “the total of all amounts” that the transferor is liable to pay under the Act without any distinction as to the makeup of these amounts … and without any time limitation. … Neal Armstrong. ...

11 November 2021- 12:07am Addy – High Court of Australia finds that imposing higher tax on Australian residents who were visa holders than on those who were not, violated a Treaty non-discrimination Article Email this Content The taxpayer, who was a British citizen aged 23, came to Australia on a “working visa” for a 20-month stint, during which period she qualified as an Australian resident. ... Here, that is visa status, a characteristic which depends on nationality – a person not being an Australian national – the very attribute protected by Art 25(1). ... Summary of Addy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] HCA 34 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 25. ...

2 October 2022- 10:46pm Frucor Suntory – New Zealand Supreme Court applies the NZ GAAR to treat interest coupons under a convertible loan and forward purchase arrangement as mostly principal Email this Content The New Zealand GAAR provided that a tax avoidance arrangement (defined to include an arrangement that has “tax avoidance as its purpose or effect … [or] as 1 of its purposes or effects … if the purpose or effect is not merely incidental”) was void as against the Commissioner. However, Ben Nevis had essentially found that where an arrangement “viewed in a commercially and economically realistic way” did not have the effect of using particular provisions of the NZ Act “in a manner … beyond parliamentary contemplation,” it generally would not be a tax avoidance arrangement. ... Ignoring interim financing steps, a NZ “Buyco” (DHNZ) in the Danone group financed about ¾ of its acquisition of a NZ target company with a $204 million interest-bearing advance from Deutsche Bank pursuant to a note that was convertible into non-voting shares of DHNZ. ...

17 July 2024- 11:32pm G E Financial Investments – English Court of Appeal finds that a deemed US resident was not a US treaty resident Email this Content A US company (“GEFI Inc.”) and UK company (“GEFI”) in the GE group formed a Delaware LP (“LP”) with GEFI Inc. as the 1% general partner and GEFI as the 99% limited partner. ... In concluding that GEFI was not so resident, Falk LJ stated: The US connections required by s.269B are limited to a) stapling of more than 50% by value of the foreign corporation's shares to those of a domestic corporation, and b) direct or indirect ownership as to 50% or more by US persons. … Neither [branch] requires any form of link between the company itself and the United States, whether a formal legal one (such as incorporation, the location of its registered office or similar) or a factual one (such as place of management). … In contrast, the criteria specified in Article 4(1) all describe legal or factual connections between the entity itself and the relevant Contracting State of a kind that may justify worldwide taxation. ... Summaries of Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v GE Financial Investments [2024] EWCA Civ 797 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 4, Art. 5. ...

The various reasons of Woods JA for rejecting the Bank’s position included: Given that “Parliament seeks certainty, predictability and fairness in tax legislation … [i]f Parliament did not intend to impose interest when a loss carryback is claimed as a result of an audit adjustment, it is likely that Parliament would have provided for this with explicit language”. ... It was “likely that Parliament knew that subparagraph (b)(iv) could function in a manner similar to a penalty … [and] that substantial interest could accrue under subparagraph (b)(iv) if the carryback request resulted from an audit”. ... Canada, 2024 FCA 192 under s. 161(7)(b)(iv), s. 111(1)(a), and Statutory Interpretation – French and English Version. ...

After finding that there was a tax benefit and avoidance transactions (being the establishment of the Income Funds through which the RRSP could invest in the businesses), Smith J also found that there was an abuse under s. 245(4), stating: [T]he object, spirit and purpose of subsection 146(4) is to prevent an annuitant from making tax deductible contributions … and then using those funds for business purposes and thus take advantage of the tax-exempt status of the plan. … [T]he acquisition by the RRSP Trust of 99% of the units of the Income Funds defeated the object, spirit and purpose of the provision and was contrary to the Parliament intention that a mutual fund trust was to be widely held. It was certainly not within the contemplation of Parliament that a mutual fund trust that was a qualified investment for RRSP purposes would effectively become one investor’s alter ego. … [T]he Appellant sought to abuse the RRSP regime and the provisions of the Act by establishing the Income Funds …. After finding that the Minister’s assessment of the taxpayer himself respecting the RRSP income pursuant to s. 56(2) was unsupported by the wording of that provision, Smith J went on to indicate that he would have upheld the reassessments of the taxpayer in those amounts on the basis of the GAAR, but for this resulting “in a duplication of the tax which the Minister has also sought to impose on the RRSP Trust pursuant to subsection 146(10.1)” – which could not “be considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ as contemplated in subsection 245(5).” ...

26 September 2016- 11:31pm Tech Mahindra – Australian Full Federal Court finds that the exception in the Australia-India Treaty for “effectively connected” royalties was not intended to exempt royalties not attributable to the source country PE from source country withholding Email this Content The Indian-resident taxpayer performed technical services for its Australian customers from its offices in India, the fees for which were deemed to be royalties under the Australia-India Treaty- as well as earning fees through an Australian permanent establishment. Art. 12(4) of the Royalty Article of the Australia-India Treaty (similarly to a provision in the Canada-India Treaty) provided that the provisions of Arts. 12(1) and (2) (permitting India and Australia to tax royalties) “shall not apply” if the Indian resident entitled to the royalties carries on business through an Australian PE “and the… services in respect of which the royalties are paid… are effectively connected with such permanent establishment” – in which case “the provisions of Article 7 … shall apply.” ... Summary of Tech Mahindra Limited v Commissioner of Taxation, [2016] FCAFC 130 under Treaties – Art. 12. ...

17 July 2017- 12:56am Club Intrawest – Federal Court of Appeal splits a service in relation to a cross-border vacation home portfolio into two geographic components Email this Content Under the usual approach to applying the GST single-supply doctrine, a Canadian-resident non-share corporation, most of whose members had time share points which entitled them to book stays at Canadian, U.S. and Mexican resort condos beneficially owned by the corporation, would have been found to be receiving its annual fees from them as consideration for a single supply of a service, namely, funding the operating costs of the time share program. This gave rise to a conundrum, as ss. 142(1)(d) and 142(2)(d) respectively deem a supply of a service in relation to real property inside Canada or outside Canada to be made in Canada or outside Canada – so that a single supply here, which would have related to both, would have been deemed to be made both inside and outside Canada. ... Canada, 2017 FCA 151 under ETA s. 142(1)(d) and General Concepts – Agency. ...

2 February 2018- 12:58am FTQ – Tax Court of Canada finds that a “gift” that relieved the taxpayer of an obligation to invest the gifted funds was not a gift Email this Content The corporate taxpayer agreed with the City of Chandler that it would no longer use any loan repayment proceeds received by it from a City-owned corporation- that had failed in an costly attempt to restart a paper mill close to the City – to invest in a prospective replacement economic-development LP to be sponsored by the City, but would instead make a “gift” of the loan repayment proceeds (which ended up totalling $9.3 million) to the City, for which it received charitable receipts. ... Ouimet J found that there was no “gift” and, thus, no s. 110.1(1)(a) deduction, stating: Since the payment of the sums … to the City of Chandler had the effect of freeing the appellant of its obligation to negotiate in good faith to create a limited partnership, the consideration received by the appellant in exchange for such payment was the amount by which that obligation was extinguished. ... The Queen, 2018 CCI 3 under s. 110.1(1)(a) and s. 18(1)(a) – income-producing purpose. ...

CRA denied the taxpayer’s request four years later for a refund of this amount on the grounds that this request had not been made within the required three-year period – and in the resulting 2014 reassessment it in fact denied some deductions/credits that had been initially allowed in its 2009 assessment. A threshold issue was whether the 2014 reassessment had been made pursuant to ITA s. 152(4.2) (also applicable for CPP purposes), which deals with a reassessment made “for the purpose of determining … the amount of any refund.” ... The reassessment was vacated on substantive grounds since a s. 96(1.1) distribution did not satisfy the applicable requirement in s. 14 of the CPP Act that it be “his income for the year from all businesses … carried on by him” (he instead was retired). ...