Search - 润华 最新动态 2025

17 January 2025 Internal T.I. 2024-1029791I7 F- SSUC- Rémunération de la haute direction / CEWS--- summary under Executive Remuneration Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(1)- Executive Remuneration no adjustments are made to an eligible entity's Statement of Executive Compensation for NEOs filed pursuant to NI 51-102 for CEWS repayment purposes The Directorate found that the “executive remuneration” (as defined in para. ...

17 January 2025 Internal T.I. 2024-1029791I7 F- SSUC- Rémunération de la haute direction / CEWS--- summary under Subsection 125.7(14) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 125.7- Subsection 125.7(14) repayment based on NI 51-102 statements, without adjustments Ss. 125.7(14) and (14.1) could require exchange-listed eligible entities to repay all or part of the CEWS they had received based inter alia on the excess of their executive remuneration over the 2019 base level. ...

21 January 2025 External T.I. 2024-1041441E5- Return of Premium Life Insurance Policy-- summary under Proceeds of the Disposition Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 148- Subsection 148(9)- Proceeds of the Disposition In response to a query as to why the taxpayer was issued at T5 slip for the receipt on the maturity of a term life insurance policy of a return of premiums (ROP) benefit (i.e., an amount equal to the total previously paid premiums under the policy), CRA provided a general technical overview of the provisions relevant to computing a policy gain under s. 148(1), and then referred the correspondent to White for further illumination. ... In elaborating on this result, Morgan stated (at paras. 23-24): The Appellant naturally thought of the ROP benefit ($24,909) as a return of non-taxable dollars. … [T]he phrase “return of premium” may be an accurate description of the maximum amount received by the Appellant upon the expiry of the term but it is misleading for the following reason. ... What the insurer paid as a benefit upon the expiry of the term was not, in a business sense or in an income tax sense, any part of the premiums for life insurance. … It was part of the insurer’s earnings. ...

19 February 2025 External T.I. 2018-0744821E5 F- Régime d’assurance collective- groupe de personne-- summary under Subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(a)- Subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) for a 2-person plan, a higher level of benefits for the majority shareholder would suggest that there was an individual policy for him, rather than being a group plan component A corporation which already offers group insurance (life, health and disability) to all its employees with the premiums paid by them, has created a supplementary disability insurance plan for two of its executive employees, one of whom is the majority shareholder. ... After noting that there would be no taxable benefit under s. 6(1)(a) from the employer's payment of the premiums if this arrangement qualified as a group plan described in s. 6(1)(a)(i), CRA stated: [A]n insurance plan can qualify as a group insurance plan if it covers two or more employees. … [F]or an individual disability insurance policy to be a component of a group insurance plan, it must be determined whether the level of benefits and the ratio of contributions to the plan shared by the employer and the employee are similar to those of the other employees covered by the same plan. ...

19 February 2025 External T.I. 2018-0744821E5 F- Régime d’assurance collective- groupe de personne-- summary under Subsection 15(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 15- Subsection 15(1) rebuttable presumption that benefits of shareholder-employees from disability plan premiums were taxable/ meaning of "contemplated" shareholder A corporation which already offers group insurance (life, health and disability) to all its employees with the premiums paid by them, has created a supplementary disability insurance plan for two of its executive employees, one of whom is the majority shareholder. ... After noting that there would be no taxable benefit under s. 6(1)(a) from the employer's payment of the premiums if this arrangement qualified as a group plan described in s. 6(1)(a)(i), CRA went on to note that its general presumption “that an employee shareholder receives benefits or allowances in their capacity as a shareholder if they can significantly influence the policies of the corporation” can be rebutted if “all employees of the corporation are entitled to the benefit” or if all employees are shareholders or related to a shareholder and the benefit “is comparable (in nature and amount) to the benefits … generally offered by corporations of the same size to non-shareholder employees whose services and responsibilities are similar.” ...

CRA noted that because the $20M of property was acquired before 2025, it would be a Class 43.2 property (50% CCA rate) rather than a Class 43.1 property (30% CCA rate) even though no CCA could be claimed until 2025 due to the available-for-use rules. Its CCA claim for 2025 would be calculated as follows: Capital cost $20M AII per Reg. 1100(2) – A- (c)(ii) (i.e., 1/2 X $20M) $10M Subtotal $30M CCA (50% Class 43.2 rate) $15M The “clean tech” ITC under s. 127.45(1) for 2027 would be 20% of the capital cost of $20M, or $4M. ... The CCA claim for 2027 would consist of a further $0.25M for the Class 43.2 property plus CCA regarding the $10M Class 43.1 acquisition calculated as follows: Capital cost $10M AII per Reg. 1100(2) – A- (b)(iii) (i.e., 5/6 X $10M) $8.33M Subtotal $18.33M CCA (30% Class 43.2 rate) $5.5M The clean tech ITC for 2027 would be 20% of the capital cost of $10M, or $2M. ...

Q.3.1 Taxpayer dies in March 2025 and Joan subsequently causes Purchaser Corporation to sell the Subject Shares to an arm’s length purchaser (ALP) for proceeds of $3 million (ALP Disposition). ... Regarding both the Q.3.1 and Q.3.2 scenarios, what would be the impact on the tax positions of Taxpayer and Purchaser Corporation in 2021 and 2025 if 84.1(2.3)(a) applied? ... However, Taxpayer would be deemed, for the purposes of section 84.1 …, to have disposed of the Subject Shares to the person who acquired them from Purchaser Corporation (himself). … [W]e are prepared to apply this provision such that, if Taxpayer had disposed of the Subject Shares directly to the subsequent purchaser and section 84.1 … would not have applied to that disposition, the First Disposition will not be subject to section 84.1 …. ...

., until May 31, 2025) exemption to a ban (imposed effective June 1, 2022) on OEO Dealers from being paid trailer fees by a mutual fund or its manager, to receive a trailing commission from the mutual fund or dealer in order to facilitate the OEO Dealer paying a rebate of such amount to its clients who held their investment in the mutual fund prior to June 1, 2022, or who transferred their mutual fund units into OEO Dealer accounts on or after June 1, 2022 (an “OEO Rebate”). The Directorate stated: [W]here an OEO Rebate is paid by an OEO Dealer to a unitholder in a trust, in the [above] circumstances … it is likely that the OEO Rebate would be considered to be in respect of the activities of the trust or in respect of an expense of the trust. ...

., until May 31, 2025) from this prohibition in order to facilitate the OEO Dealer in paying a rebate of such amounts to their clients who held their investment in the mutual fund prior to June 1, 2022, or who transferred their mutual fund units into OEO Dealer accounts on or after June 1, 2022 (an “OEO Rebate”). The Directorate stated: [W]here an OEO Rebate is paid by an OEO Dealer to a unitholder in a trust, in the [above] circumstances … it is likely that the OEO Rebate would be considered to be in respect of the activities of the trust or in respect of an expense of the trust. ...

., the actual capital cost grossed-up to $15,000,000 and multiplied by the 50% Class 43.2 rate); It claims the Nova Scotia Capital Investment Tax Credit (“NS CITC”) of 25% of the $10,000,000 capital cost, or $2,500,000 and receives it by way of credit or refund; It claims and receives the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit (“Clean Tech ITC”) pursuant to s. 127.45, which is calculated as 30% of the capital cost, as reduced by the NS CITC, viewed as government assistance that it can “reasonably be expected to receive” (on December 31, 2024, receipt of the NS CITC is contingent on it receiving, by its filing-due date, an entitlement certificate); It claims an Atlantic Investment Tax Credit (“AITC”) pursuant to s. 127(9) of $750,000, being 10% of the capital cost, again reduced to $7,500,000 by the NS CITC “government assistance” – and receives the AITC by way of credit against federal tax payable in the current year or during the carryforward or carryback period. In 2025, the capital cost of the property will have been reduced (pursuant to s. 13(7.1)(e)) by the two federal tax credits claimed and (pursuant to s. 13(7)(f)) by the NS CITC “assistance” claimed, i.e., to $4,500.000. ...