Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

In commenting on the s. 118(1)(b) equivalent-to-spouse deduction, the Directorate stated: [W]hether an individual is wholly dependant on a parent … does not solely depend on the custody arrangements defined in a Court Order. Therefore, if the particular facts of the case indicate that the child is financially dependent on Taxpayer B such that Taxpayer B provides almost entirely for the person’s well-being it could be determined that the child is wholly dependant for support on Taxpayer B. … [G]iven the court order requires Taxpayer B to make child support payments and this court order has not been varied to remove the requirement for Taxpayer B to make child support payments, Taxpayer B will not be able to claim a credit under paragraph 118(1)(b) pursuant to subsection 118(5). ...

., $1,800 = $1,000 + $800). ...

The exclusion for “an amount that is the cost of … an interest in a trust” also applied since the Purchaser acquired an equitable interest in the Plan, i.e., there it could potentially take a contribution holiday, receive a return of contributions on a winding-up of the Plan, and potentially receive the surplus in other circumstances. Regarding the specific exclusion in Class 14.1 of “goodwill,” this was defined in TransAlta as “an unidentified intangible asset,” whereas the surplus here instead “was supported by actuarial estimates and was objectively quantifiable,” “represents real value that can be applied to offset the employer’s contribution obligations for a number of years” and “[u]nlike goodwill … can be separated from the employer’s business if, as in this case, the plan terms permit surplus to be returned to the employer when the appropriate regulatory procedures are followed” and, thus, “was not an unidentified intangible.” ...

CRA noted that the Courts generally have found that "costs incurred for the creation of a business entity, structure or organization, or for the modification of such entity, structure or organization are capital in nature" and that " the purpose of the proposed conversion was to obtain an advantage of an enduring nature, including the elimination of the corporate level of tax and increasing the ability of the business to raise investment capital. ...

In this case, given that [the Delaware subsidiary] did not dispose of any property when the Surplus was repatriated, it follows that this transaction did not result in a gain within the meaning of section 40 …. ...

8 October 2008 Internal T.I. 2008-0269581I7- statute-barred refund-- summary under Subsection 164(1.5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 164- Subsection 164(1.5) "may" establishes CRA discretion In disagreeing with the taxpayer's submission "that subsection 164(1.5) is not really a discretionary provision but essentially gives individuals and testamentary trusts an ‘as of right' entitlement to a refund to an overpayment if they satisfy the ten year tax return filing requirement," CRA referenced a further submission that " Jack Herdman Limited v. ...

However, the same does not apply to the imposition of penalties under s. 162(7) for failure to file T1135 returns, as the income from foreign properties in question is required to be reported on a normal Part I return rather than a distinct return – so that such a penalty must be reassessed within the normal reassessment period for that return. ...

. … …[I]f the disposed-of property is the principal residence of the individual, that election is not necessary because the taxpayer can avail himself or herself of the exemption in paragraph 40(2)(b) and thereby reduce or eliminate any capital gain realized on the disposition. ...

" However, under the foreign law under which the Partnership was formed and the provisions of the partnership agreement "the partners of the Partnership are jointly and severally liable for the debts incurred by the Partnership. ...

Our conclusion is…supported by… Transocean …. ...