Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

CRA stated: [P]aragraph 94(2)(t) … applies to expunge the contribution after the time of the sale (i.e., from the time of the sale forward, the contribution is considered to have never occurred). ...

. … [F]or U.S. income tax purposes, the Canadian Branch profits of LLC3 are considered to be derived by the first entity in the corporate chain which is not treated as a fiscally transparent entity for U.S. income tax purposes. ...

Given the potentially significant differences in both the amount and timing of the reimbursement payment as compared to the actual contributions made by Parentco … the reimbursement payments are not equivalent to Parentco’s contributions to the EBP, and thus cannot be considered to be a proxy for those contributions. ...

If it is determined that the TPRs were due to an error … the TPRs for all of the taxation years could be accepted. ...

After citing Transalta for the proposition that “a discretionary arrangement that does not give employees the right to require that equity-based compensation be paid in the form of shares rather than cash is not an agreement to sell or issue shares for purposes of section 7,” it stated: … USCo can unilaterally decide to settle RSUs payable to CanCo employees in the form of cash rather than issuing Shares. ...

(a)(ii) of the ERDTOH definition – whereas para. (b) of the NERDTOH definition includes all other Part IV taxes payable by the corporation on dividends from a connected corporation, the Directorate stated: A corporation will not have transitioned to the ERDTOH and NERDTOH regime in its taxation year that begins before 2019 and cannot receive a refund from its ERDTOH account with respect to dividends paid in that taxation year. ...

[G]iven that the office space was unoccupied since the eligible entity moved to a new office … the old office space would likely not be considered to be used in the ordinary activities of the eligible entity. ...

It was “Rulings’ view that allowing subsection 220(2.1) to waive a taxpayer’s requirement to file an election not listed in Regulation 600 would negate the specific intention of Parliament in limiting late elections to only those that are prescribed in [Reg.] 600” – and, in any event, the CIF provision was not a provision of the Act itself, as required by s. 220(2.1). ...

It was “Rulings’ view that allowing subsection 220(2.1) to waive a taxpayer’s requirement to file an election not listed in Regulation 600 would negate the specific intention of Parliament in limiting late elections to only those that are prescribed in [Reg.] 600” – and, in any event, the CIF provision was not a provision of the Act itself, as required by s. 220(2.1). ...

. … Given the fact that a non-resident that receives a letter containing proposed assessed amounts would almost certainly make a valid paragraph 94(3)(f) election before an audit assessment is actually issued, it appears unlikely that such a non-resident would ever be prevented from making a valid election. ...