Search - 水晶光电 行业地位 发展趋势

. … [T]he issuance of a note by a trust does not result in the beneficiary having the ownership of property which belonged to the trust and to which he had a right as beneficiary immediately before its distribution. Therefore subsection 107(2) cannot apply respecting the note for $150,000. … [T]he issuance of a note does not constitute the distribution of property of a trust to a beneficiary for purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of cost amount in subsection 108(1). ...

. … … The Court concluded that the taxpayer would not have entered into the swaps if it had not acquired the US Operations. ...

After noting that one of the conditions for the application of s. 104(19) was that the amount be includible under s. 104(13)(a), 104(14) or 105 in the taxpayer’s income and before concluding that s. 104(19) would not apply, so that the s. 112(1) deduction would be unavailable, CRA stated: An employee trust … is a trust referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of "trust" in subsection 108(1). ... Similarly, subsection 104(14) and section 105 do not apply …. A similar analysis would apply if the Trust was no longer an employee trust but instead was a trust governed by an employee benefit plan to which the corporation had contributed as an employer. ...

Is the capital loss as computed before the application of s. 40(3.6) attributed to X or to the protective trust, and is it added to the ACB of the trust's or X's shares – and would the answers change if all the shares were held by the trust? CRA responded (TaxInterpretations translation):...A loss which is deemed to be nil by virtue of paragraph 40(3.6)(a) is not attributable to anyone. … Assuming that after the redemption of the shares…held by the asset-protection trust, the trust continuously still holds at least one share…, the amount of the loss must be added in the calculation of the adjusted cost base of a share…held by the asset-protection trust immediately after the disposition…. ...

The Queen [f.n. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 198]… confirmed the importance of the realization principle under which amounts received or realized by a taxpayer – free of conditions or restrictions as to their use – are taxable in the years in which they are realized subject to any contrary provision in the Income Tax Act or other rules of law. ...

CRA responded: When a taxpayer ceases to be a partner of a partnership in the course of a fiscal period of the partnership, the deeming rule in paragraph 96(1.01)(a) applies so as to deem the taxpayer – for purposes inter alia of subsection 96(1) and section 103 – to be a partner of the partnership at the end of its fiscal period. ...

In the situation where FA1 was required to compute its income (pursuant to Reg. 5907(1) – earnings – (a)(iii)) under Part I of the Act, CRA indicated that the interest was deductible under s. 20(1)(c) “because the borrowed funds replaced capital that…had been used by FA1 for the purpose of earning income from an active business,” whereas in the situation where the earnings were computed pursuant to (a)(i) or (iii) of the earnings definition under local tax law and the interest was non-deductible under such law, CRA simply stated that the interest would be deductible under Reg. 5907(2)(j). ...

Is the income allocated to the other taxpayer in Situations 1 and 2 under ss. 74.1(1) and 103 required to be reimbursed by the taxpayer who received the income – and similarly re Situation 3, is B required to reimburse A for the sale proceeds received by him? CRA stated: [T]he provisions…mentioned...do not provide for a reimbursement obligation by a taxpayer where a benefit was allocated or when income was attributed to another taxpayer. … ...

After noting that there was no transfer of safe income to the Class B share in light of its nominal value and taking into account CRA’s “long-standing position on the transfer of safe income on a stock dividend – “and no SIOH would contribute to the hypothetical capital gain on the class "B" share in the capital stock of Opco held by Holdco,” CRA noted that accordingly: If all other conditions were satisfied, subsection 55(2) would apply in respect of the dividend of $1 million. … If Opco proceeded with an increase in PUC rather than a cash dividend…the CRA would have the same answer…. ...

CRA responded: In our view, a corporation could carry on a PSB even if it has more than one incorporated employee, to the extent that the following provisions apply to each of those employees: Each incorporated employee is a specified shareholder of the PSB ….; Each incorporated employee provides services on behalf of the PSB to a person or a partnership; Had it not been for the existence of the corporation carrying on the PSB, it must be reasonable to consider each incorporated employee to be an officer or employee of the person or partnership to whom the services are rendered. Thus … a corporation that carries on a PSB will be able to deduct the salaries of the two trucker spouses if the two trucker spouses are considered to be incorporated employees of the corporation. ...