Search - 江西农大 毛瑢

21 April 2022- 11:18pm Kufsky – Federal Court of Appeal finds that a taxpayer received dividends for s. 160 purposes because she was estopped from arguing otherwise or because the corporate insolvency did not matter Email this Content A shareholder loan balance that was owing by the taxpayer was eliminated through dividend declarations backdated to the three preceding years and paid by way of set-off. ... Webb JA found that the taxpayer was estopped from now arguing that the amounts that she had treated as dividends in fact were not dividends (so that s. 160 did not apply to their payment)- because the appropriate procedures for the declaration and payment of the amounts as dividends were not followed and because s. 38(3) of the OBCA prohibited the payment of a dividend by an insolvent corporation – on the basis of the principle that: [A] taxpayer who has benefited from having an amount included in his or her income as a dividend in a particular taxation year (and who has not objected to the assessment of tax based on having received this dividend) is estopped from claiming in any subsequent appeal related to the application of section 160 of the Act, that the previous filing position was wrong. ... Canada, 2022 FCA 66 under s. 160(1), General Concepts – FMV – Other, Onus, and Payment and Receipt. ...

19 January 2022- 10:43pm 9056-2059 Québec – Tax Court of Canada finds that ETA s. 153(2) requires a reasonable allocation of consideration between component supplies Email this Content In order to promote the sale of its farm products (mostly honey), the appellant developed a “labyrinth” of trails on its forest lands and, when it sold tickets for access by visitors to the trails, stipulated that the ticket, generally sold for $12, also constituted a coupon of $1.50 to be applied to the purchase of honey or other products. ... Before confirming the resulting reassessments that treated $1.50 of the ticket prices as being zero-rated consideration for the honey or other food products, and the balance as consideration that was subject to tax, Boyle J indicated that s. 153(2) required that the “cost of admission to … the … forest must be reasonably divided between access to the labyrinth and other activities, and the mandatory purchase of a coupon to be exchanged for a honey or maple food product,” and then stated: Appellant was unable to present any valid reason why the value of the initial coupon should be other than $1.50, which is what it charged for the same coupons when purchased individually. ...