Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

. … [T]here is not a single [Canadian] case in which the word "property" has been held to include a right that is not or does not entail an exclusive and legally enforceable claim. ...

The shareholder group consisted of (i) two unrelated individuals (Souty, and Foix – who held his shares through a passive portfolio company (“Virtuose”),) (ii) trusts for the two respective families (the Souty and Foix Trusts) and (iii) after giving effect to intricate preliminary transactions, two holding companies for Souty and Foix through which they held a portion of their shares of W4N (in the case of “Souty Holdco”) or of Virtuose (in the case of “Foix Holdco”). ... He went on to indicate (at para. 67) that “the scope of subsection 84(2) is sufficiently broad to counter this type of distribution when the property being distributed is fungible and a third-party facilitator is involved in the extraction process” and (at para. 69) that “it would be contrary to Parliament’s intention to turn a blind eye to the existence of a distribution or appropriation for the sole reason that, for example, the shareholder received the target corporation’s property as a creditor rather than as a shareholder … or, as in the present case, that the funds received by the shareholder originate directly from a third party but indirectly from the target corporation.” ...

Trudel JA found no reviewable error in the finding of Boyle JA that as "Dividend B was paid in proportion to shareholdings then it could not have been paid ‘in proportion to assessments ' and thus Dividend B would clearly not fall within the ambit of paragraph 137.1(10)(a)" (para. 49). ...

Lehigh Cement Limited, 2014 DTC 5058 [at at 6849], 2014 FCA 103, aff'g 2013 DTC 1139 [at 740], 2013 TCC 176-- summary under Paragraph 95(6)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 95- Subsection 95(6)- Paragraph 95(6)(b) restricted to status-manipulating acquisitions or dispositions The taxpayer ("CBR Canada") directly (as to 99%) and indirectly (through a wholly-owned Alberta subsidiary as to 1%) used $US 100 million borrowed from two arm's length non-resident banks (with the principal but not the interest obligation under the first loan then being assigned by the first bank to a Belgian subsidiary of the taxpayer's ultimate Belgian parent – "CBR SA") by making capital contributions to a US LLC, which used those funds to make interest-bearing loans to a U.S. sister corporation ("CBR US") of CBR Canada. ...

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Minister raised several new arguments, including that: the transactions were abusive of ss. 3, 4, 9 and 111, an underlying policy of which is that business loss claims should reflect actual losses; the taxpayer's purported losses were not business losses, given that the shares were not acquired as inventory or as part of and adventure or concern in the nature of trade (see "Rollover and other non-trading transactions "); and to the extent that the taxpayer had any losses, they were capital in nature. ...

. … If the payments were remuneration payable to Ms. Kirsten for her services, subsection 56(2) would not require the payments to be taxed in the hands of Mr. ...

" and that this condition was satisfied here given that the taxpayer's exercised control over Holiday 80. ...

., that it was not one or the other of those things, cannot be” – as was the case here as the taxpayer’s debenture purchase had effectively been admitted not to be an investment. ...

. … CRA…responded to Devon in relation to the merits of its submissions with respect to paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(e)… and…in the notices of confirmation, stated that the basis of the objection included the argument that the predecessors of Devon should be entitled to a deduction under paragraph 20(1)(b)…. ...

., 2011 FC 224 …aff’d 2011 FCA 306 ….” ...