Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

6 July 2011 Internal T.I. 2010-0357461I7 F- CII RS&DE-- summary under Subsection 127(8.3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 127- Subsection 127(8.3) proportionate ITCs allocated to specified member in proportion to capital can then be reallocated under s. 127(8.3) to non-specified member A partnership, which has made $1,000,000 in eligible SR & ED expenditures, consists of two associated partners: the first is a partner other than a specified member which is a CCPC and which contributes $1,000 to the partnership; and the second is a specified member which is a non-CCPC corporation which contributes $999,000. ... [S]ince the total of the taxable income of the partner who is not a specified member and the taxable income of the specified member exceeds the business limit of the partner who is not a specified member, the partner who is not a specified member is not a qualifying corporation …. That partner would therefore not be entitled to the refundable ITCs provided for in section 127.1 …. ...

In finding that instead there was no Part VI.1 tax payable, the Directorate stated: [T]he common shares … were neither "STPSs" nor "TPSs" …. ... Furthermore, we are of the view that the purchase price per share … did not exceed the FMV of the Corporation's common shares at the time these agreements were entered into or at the time the shares were acquired. ...

The employees each sleep in the truck’s cab as a security measure, so that no expenses are generally incurred by them for accommodation – but their meal expenses, amounting to around $40 per day, are approximately twice the allowance amounts in scenarios 1 and 3 based inter alia on assumptions as to the number of kilometres travelled. ... In addition… the costs of showers are also considered to be deductible as accommodation expenses where a transport employee sleeps in the cab of the truck rather than in a hotel. … [A]n allowance for accommodation expenses calculated exclusively on the basis of distance, time or other criteria will not be considered reasonable if it does not represent an estimate of the cost of accommodation that may be incurred by the employee during the travel that generated entitlement to the allowance. … [W]here an employee sleeps in the truck cab, it is unlikely that the allowances for accommodation expenses in the three scenarios provided will be considered reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b). ...

Although the Taxpayer mostly had not deducted the amounts of the Interest Debt, in its return (apparently for Year X), the Taxpayer added such amounts to its non-capital losses at the beginning of the year – then in Year X+1, it deducted the forgiven amount, equalling the difference between the Interest Debt and the fair market value of its assets, from the balance of its non-capital losses. ... After describing the Taxpayer as having a right to reduce the Interest Debt that was contingent upon the conditions precedent, stating that such right was “exercisable” as it was “’capable of being made effective in action’ or ‘capable of being implemented’,” and after noting the Taxpayer’s submission that “for a right to be ‘exercisable,’ the taxpayer must have a positive right to reduce an amount,” so that “automatic reductions… beyond the control of the taxpayer would not be caught under the definition of a ‘right to reduce’,” CRA concluded: [T]he Taxpayer’s right to reduce the Interest Debt is contingent upon a series of conditions that are set out in the Plan, including the Conditions Precedent, and … falls within the definition of a “right to reduce” in subsection 143.4(1) because it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all the circumstances, that the right will become exercisable. … Further, even if the Interest Debt is settled in a subsequent year, there should be no double taxation [given] (a)(i) of the definition of “excluded obligation”…. ...

After finding that the “time the agreement was made” in s. 110(1)(d)(ii)(A) referenced the time of the sending of the Exercise Notice to the Participant, the Directorate went on to state: [T]he fact that the Participants who did not directly or indirectly hold shares in the capital stock of Opco have seen substantially all of their Options expire each year without being able to exercise them, while some of the Participants who directly or indirectly held shares of the capital stock of Opco have been able to exercise substantially all of their Options before they expire, may be an indication that subsection 7(5) would apply …. ... In such a situation, it would be other provisions such as subsections 15(1) or 246(1) that would apply. … To the extent that … some of the Participants received the benefit of the issuance of the Exercise Notices in a capacity other than by virtue of an office or employment, we are of the view that section 7(5) could be invoked. ...

2 October 2006 Internal T.I. 2006-0168081I7 F- Actions d'une société en faillite-- summary under Subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 50- Subsection 50(1)- Paragraph 50(1)(b)- Subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) if s. 50(1)(b)(iii) conditions are satisfied in a year, the election can be made in a subsequent year – but not if the corporation was a bankrupt in the first year After the appointment of a trustee, two subsidiary corporations of the taxpayer corporation filed notices of intention under s. 50.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") to make a proposal, and renewed the notices. ... However, the Directorate noted that, in contrast, under s. 50(1)(b)(i) “if the condition in subparagraph 50(1)(b)(i) is satisfied in a year and the taxpayer does not elect to recognize a deemed disposition for that year, it will not, in our view, be able to make the election in a subsequent year” – so that no loss could be recognized because no election had been made until the subsequent year. Furthermore: Given that the legal status of a taxpayer differs depending on whether it is bankrupt or merely insolvent … the provisions of subparagraph 50(1)(b)(iii) are not intended to cover the situation of a taxpayer who has become bankrupt. ...

Did the interest-free loan generate Part XIII tax and, if so, who had the obligation to collect and remit the tax – and how could it be collected? ... Subsection 15(9) then provides a deeming rule that transforms the subsection 80.4(2) benefit into a shareholder benefit under subsection 15(1). … If subsection 15(1) could only apply where there was a direct shareholder relationship between the benefit recipient and the benefit conferrer, it would not only render the “connected” concept under subsection 80.4(2) meaningless, but also would imply that the only purpose of subsection 80.4(2) is to provide a formula for the calculation of a subsection 15(1) benefit. … As the “shareholder” in subsection 15(1), Foreign Sub would be the taxpayer who is deemed to have received the dividend under paragraph 214(3)(a), and it is therefore Foreign Sub who is liable for the withholding tax imposed under subsection 212(2).... ...

. … We understand that under US GAAP, OCI is a component of equity that is presented separately from retained earnings and paid-in capital …. IFRS similarly requires that OCI be presented as a separate component of equity and not included in retained earnings. … However, since the Taxpayer’s financial statements are prepared using GAAP of another country, the CRA could question the appropriateness of reporting any specific item as OCI, rather than retained earnings, where such treatment deviates from the treatment under Canadian GAAP (including IFRS) and such deviation has a significant impact on the amount of deductible interest under the thin capitalization rules. ...

25 September 2003 Internal T.I. 2003-0032837 F- Market Maker: Reserve Account for Losses-- summary under Paragraph 153(1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 153- Subsection 153(1)- Paragraph 153(1)(a) payment of deferred commission amounts held as contingency loss reserve from old employer to new employer was a payment of “remuneration” subject to withholding A firm (ABC), that employed market makers on a commission basis, maintained a separate account for each employee into which a portion of the commissions earned by the employee was retained and held in an account (named, a contingency loss reserve account) until a certain limit was reached and was to be used to cover any losses resulting from the employee's transactions, and with the employee having access to the account on leaving the employment – except that where the employee moved employment to another member firm of the same clearinghouse ABC may, at the request of and for the benefit of the employee, transfer the funds accumulated in its reserve account to another similar account administered by the new employer. ... Furthermore … this payment is made to the employee by ABC, even if the employee does not receive it directly. … The employee chooses to direct the payment to the new employer's reserve account for the employee’s benefit, rather than personally collecting the funds. ...

CCo was liquidated into BCo in a designated liquidation and dissolution (“DLAD”) occurring on a rollover basis under s. 95(2)(e), so that BCo acquired all of CCo’s Class B shares of FCo. 2017-0735771I7 concluded that the liquidation of CCo into BCo did not result in the Suspended Loss becoming available, as such liquidation was a “merger” under s. 40(3.5)(c)(i) – so that BCo was deemed to own the shares of CCo as long as BCo and ACo were affiliated and the presumption that the Suspended Loss was deemed to be nil applied over that period. ... CRA responded: … BCo is deemed to own the shares of CCo while it is affiliated with ACo (i.e., the transferor). Upon the completion of the liquidation of BCo, it would no longer be affiliated with ACo. … Pursuant to subparagraph 40(3.4)(b)(i), the Suspended Loss will be deemed to be a capital loss of ACo immediately after the completion of the liquidation of BCo. ...