Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

An attempt by the parties themselves to rectify their transactions on a nunc pro tunc basis may not be respected as having retroactive effect for tax purposes (see S & D), although the parties' self-help rectification in AES (replacing most of a promissory note with preferred shares) was effectively ratified after the fact in a Quebec context. ... However, in S & D, transactions were rectified so as to minimize adverse tax consequences to the extent consistent with the commercial intent of the parties, even though there had not been a continuing intention of the parties to avoid tax. ...

The participating percentage formula for Nova Scotia (i.e., the province with the highest HST rate) is (with applying A1 to Nova Scotia rather than Ontario): (A1/A2) + [A3 × (A1/A4)] + [(1 – A3) – (A4/A2)], namely, As the value of the Nova Scotia units is nil, this amount is: (0/100) + [0 × (0/100)] + [(1 – 0) – (100/100, namely, 0. ... The participating percentage formula for Nova Scotia is: (A1/A2) + [A3 × (A1/A4)] + [(1 – A3) – (A4/A2)] As the value of the Nova Scotia units is nil, this amount is: (0/100) + [.10 × (0/50)] + [(1 –.10) – (50/100)], namely, 40%. ... The participating percentage formula for Nova Scotia is: (A1/A2) + [A3 × (A1/A4)] + [(1 – A3) – (A4/A2)] As the value of the Nova Scotia units is approximately $50, this amount is: (50/100) + [0 × (50/100)] + [(1 –0) – (100/100)], namely, 50%. ...

This example assumes that the relevant provincial HST or QST rates are Ontario – 8%; Alberta – nil; Quebec- approximately 10% (in fact, 9.975%); and New Brunswick – 10%. ... Pursuant to SLFI Regs. s. 30(1), these are: Ontario – 50%*50% = 25%; Alberta- 50%*50% = 25%; Quebec – 40%; and New Brunswick – 10%. The total net tax for ILP under SLFI Regs. s. 48(1)(b)A 6 is calculated by first applying the computation on a province-by-province basis: Ontario: $500 * 25% * 8%/5% = $200 Alberta: nil Quebec: $500 * 40% * 10%/5% = $400 New Brunswick: $500 * 10% * 10%/5% = $100 Total: $700 SLFI Regs. s. 48(1)A(b)A 6 (and QSTA s. 433.16.2) then requires a comparison between the total provincial tax of $700 computed on the basis of the above province-by-province calculations and the actual provincial tax paid of $1,000, so that on filing the annual RC7294 return, there would be a net refund of $300 claimed. ...

Its units (which were registered in the name of their owners) were held as follows on September 30, 2015 (the “attribution point” for determining its provincial attribution percentages for 2016 – see SLFI Regs. 48(3) and 16(1) – attribution point – (b)(i)): individuals who are resident in Ontario on the basis of their recorded addresses (see SLFI Reg. 5(a)) – 60%; various Canadian-controlled private corporations, each holding units with a value under $10M, whose principal place of business as recorded in the MFT’s records is in Ontario (see SLFI Reg. 5(b))- 20%; another CCPC (related to the MFT manager), which is not a listed financial institution (e.g., it was not a trader or dealer in securities and its principal business is not money lending) and was known to have, as its only permanent establishment for purposes of Part IV of the Income Tax Regulations, an office in Ontario, holding units with a value over $10M – 15% (see SLFI Reg. 28(e)); and individuals who were resident in Quebec on the basis of their recorded addresses– 5%. ... Accordingly, one would expect the MFT to be subject to a blended rate of tax of 13.09875% (=13%*0.95 + 14.975%*0.05). ... In fact, the annual RC7294 return would first compute (consistently with SLFI Reg. 32(1) – B) a negative amount on the federal portion of the return of $8,000, calculated as the difference between the actual Ontario HST paid of $160,000 (8%/5%*$100,000) and the federal SAM amount of $152,000 (95% of $160,000), and then compute a positive $9,975 QST amount on the Quebec portion of the return, calculated as 9.975%/5% of the federal GST of $100,000 multiplied by the Quebec provincial attribution percentage of 5%. ...

Whether partner draws must vary with profits In Lindley & Banks on Partnership, 17th edition, 1995, para. 10-70, there was a statement that where, on the true construction of a partnership deed, a junior partner's salary is payable only out of profits, he will be respected as a partner, whereas if the agreement may be construed as providing for a guaranteed salary as well as an indemnity against losses, then "the supposed 'partner' will, it is conceived, be no more than an employee of the firm". ... Clyde & Co LLP. Similar to the English law before these decisions, there are sparse indications in the Canadian jurisprudence that a failure to share in profits is an important, and perhaps even critical, consideration pointing to such person not being a partner. ...

However, in another case, Rip J. found that the methodology of the Minister in treating shares held 365 days or fewer as on income account, and those held more than 365 days on capital account, " was arbitrary and without any reasonable basis", and allowed the taxpayer's appeal (Strassburger). ...

As indicated in the Finance Explanatory Notes, similar rules exist in various other provisions of the Act that adjust paid-up capital – for example ss. 85(2.1)(b), 212.1(2), and 128.1(3). ... Years later, CRIC purchases ½ of its shares for cancellation for $2,000. ... The purchase for cancellation of ½ the shares (having a PUC of $1,000) gives rise to a deemed dividend of $1,000 under s. 84(3). ...

Depending on the quantum of the recapture of depreciation and capital gains to be recognized in the year of the redemption transactions, this may requires choosing a combination of an aggregate issuer-bid redemption amount (Line R) and a special distribution amount (Line U) in order to produce this result – although in the above example, this dilemma does not arise. ... To expand on a point adverted to in the previous paragraph, there does not appear to be any prohibition against the trustees treating all, rather than only ½, of the distributions made by them in the year, in excess of the trust ordinary income for the year, as being a distribution of a taxable capital gain – rather than being forced to treat ½ of such distribution as in effect being a capital distribution (i.e., of the untaxed ½ of the relevant portion of the capital gains realized in the year. Utilizing the capital gains redemption rules may help a mutual fund trust to address a "dry income " issue, i.e., a situation where, absent such refund, its distributions in they year would be insufficient to fully distribute all of the income (including a substantial taxable capital gain) realized by it in the year. ...

Before reference were made to the prescribed debt obligation rule in Regulation 7000(2)(a) deeming discounts on stripped coupons or non-interest bearing debt to be interest, a zero-coupon bond could not be considered for these purposes to have been acquired as a (capital) investment as the bond does not generate interest income (Bernick), unless the discount from the bond's principal were be characterized as interest income on general principles (see " Discounts "). ... A transaction likely will not be an adventure in the nature of trade if it is not a transaction of a type that a trader would consider entering into (see Mandelbaum, and " Business "). ...

Insurances proceeds received by a company on the death of a key employee have been found in the UK to be taxable on the basis that they were received for the loss of an employee who was expected to generate taxable receipts (Keir & Cawder). ... Roberts, BP Canada), including where the amount is calculated by reference to future sales which were lost (Import Motors)- or for the loss of a material line of business (Parsons & Steiner). ... Compensation for damage to or loss of other capital assets In the English case referred to above (London & Thames Haven v. ...