Search - 江苏苏美达轻纺国际贸易有限公司 关税政策 最新动态

. … [S]ubsection 7(2) does not serve to deem the existence of an agreement to issue or sell shares for the purposes of section 7 where such an agreement does not, in fact, exist. … Since this was such a discretionary plan, the employee benefit plan rules instead applied. ... Finally, it should be noted that … McNeeley [under appeal] … considered a discretionary trust plan similar to the one in the situation described and concluded that the EBP rules applied. ...

IV tax on such dividends based on the total DR received by Aco, in accordance with s. 186(1)(b): Bco: $100,000/$600,000 X $138,333 = $23,055; Cco: $500,000/$600,000 X $138,333- $115,278. ... After noting that this ERDTOH-NERDTOH shift resulted “from the fact that paragraph 186(1)(b) makes no connection between the type of RDTOH account entitling Aco to the DR and the type of dividend received by Bco and Cco,” CRA agreed that, here, “the conversion of an amount of ERDTOH into an amount of NERDTOH results in an increase in the tax payable by the Shareholder … but only at … the stage where the amount of dividends paid is limited to the amount necessary to give entitlement to the DR of the ERDTOH and the NERDTOH of Bco and Cco totalling $138,333.” However, CRA indicated that this “conversion of an ERDTOH amount into a NERDTOH amount … does not ultimately result in additional tax to the Shareholder once all of the dividends received from Aco are paid to the Shareholder by Bco and Cco.” ...

. … Thus, the CRA considers that it is not possible to permit a member of a partnership to directly claim capital cost allowance for an eligible non-residential building, as this would be contrary to the rules respecting the computation of a partnership's income …. … [W]hen a partnership files a T5013 for its fiscal year, it must attach a letter indicating the election under ITR subsection 1101(5b.1). ...

CRA responded: [Under] paragraph (a) … of "excluded property" … [t]here must in particular be income from its business, rather than more generally "income from an active business" as that term is defined in subsection 95(1). … [T]he following should be considered in particular: the use that is actually made of the property in the course of the various activities of the FA, the income from the use or possession of the property, the intention of the FA with respect to the use and holding of the property, the terms and conditions of ownership of the property, the nature of the activities of the FA and current practices in the particular industrial sector. ...

. … In fact, the transfer or distribution of property by the trustee of the trust to the settlor did not occur immediately prior to the death of the settlor-beneficiary. ... Furthermore … Nussey rejected the effect on the CRA of a contractual presumption that would recognize a redemption of shares by a corporation taking effect prior to their disposition on death of a shareholder …. ...

. … [T]he number of events to which this policy is applied must remain reasonable …. ... Therefore, it is necessary to include the GST/QST paid by the employer …. ...

Indeed … Opco is not connected with Realtyco within the meaning of subsection 186(4). Consequently, Realtyco would not be a SBC within the meaning of subsection 248(1), since only about 44% ($100,000 out of $225,000) of the fair market value of its assets would be attributable to items falling within that definition of SBC. … [A] prior reorganization of Realtyco could not resolve these difficulties because of the "more than 50%" test for the fair market value of the asset during the 24-month holding period in paragraph (c) of the definition of QSBCS …. ...

The above comments should be considered whenever there is a conversion … to U.S. limited liability partnerships or U.S. limited liability limited partnerships…. … The CRA remains open to … an advance income tax ruling request…. ...

Element C in the s. 6(2) formula appears to contemplate that the cost of the automobile to a person (Holdco) related to the employer is to be taken into account – but 2014-0529991E5 appears to indicate that the leasing cost to Opco should instead be used. ... CRA responded: In a situation where a lease and purchase are involved, the wording of the formula in subsection 6(2) requires that the cost of the automobile be added to C and that the leasing cost be added to E to calculate the reasonable standby charge for an automobile made available to an employee. … This situation has been brought to the attention of the Department of Finance. ... In the example submitted … the CRA could consider only the leasing cost that Opco pays to Holdco for the purposes of the formula set out in subsection 6(2). ...

…[A] gain of $150,000 … in respect of the disposition of … the policy should be included in computing his income for the taxation year of his death …. ...