Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

. … [I]n determining whether [NR1’s] partnership interest is excluded property … any assets held by the partnership on which income was or would be recharacterized as active would qualify as excluded property under paragraph (c). ... The Directorate went on to find that if the partnership interest disposition date was 6, the cash held at that time did not qualify as an active business asset (noting that it “being used in a continuation of the active business activities undertaken by FORP, as it had never carried on an active business”); and that on the dissolution date no property was held – so that, either way, para. ...

In finding that the payments pursuant to the TSA by LLC1 and LLC2 qualified under Reg. 5907(1.3)(a) as amounts that could reasonably be regarded as being in respect of income tax that would otherwise have been payable by CFA3 or CFA4 in respect of the FAPI had their US tax liabilities been determined for US purposes on an unconsolidated basis, the Directorate indicated that: although it was only the CFAs and not LLC1 and LLC2, as disregarded entities, who severally bore the liability to pay the US consolidated group’s tax liability, the payments made by LLC1 and LLC2 to CFA2 were made on behalf of their respective sole members the indirect routing of their payments to CFA1 through CFA2 made no difference although the payments for the 2011 taxation years were not made pursuant to a written agreement, there was no requirement that tax sharing payments be made pursuant to a written agreement, and here, it would be reasonable for the TSO to consider that those payments have been made pursuant to an unwritten tax indemnity agreement furthermore: [T[he fact that the tax sharing payments have been paid in June 2014 does not prevent paragraph 5907(1.3)(a) … from applying to these amounts for the purposes of Canco’s 2011 and 2012 taxation years. In our view, the deduction under subsection 91(4) is available in the taxation year of the taxpayer in which the taxation year of the FA, for which an income or profits tax would have been payable in the circumstances described in subsection 5907(1.3) of the Regulations, ends. … The amounts constructively paid by CFA3 and CFA4 were determined in a manner that, in our view, supports that they can reasonably be regarded as being in respect of the income tax that these foreign affiliates would have paid in respect of FAPI earned by their disregarded subsidiaries (LLC1 and LLC2 respectively) if the tax liabilities of CFA3 and CFA4 had those amounts not been determined as members of the US Consolidated Group but rather had been determined separately. Accordingly these amounts should give rise to a prescribed amount under paragraph 5907(1.3)(a) …. ...

19 October 2023 Internal T.I. 2020-0856851I7- Ordinary Course of Business-- summary under Paragraph 258(4)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 258- Subsection 258(4)- Paragraph 258(4)(a) MRPS acquired by a Canadian insurance company subsidiary in order for the Luxco to loan-finance US operations were not acquired in the ordinary course In 2010, a Canadian corporation, which was a specified financial institution by virtue of being controlled by its parent, a Canadian insurance corporation, subscribed for 9,350,000 mandatory redeemable preferred shares of Luxco 1 (“MRPS” – subsequently, “Class A MRPS”) for US$935,000,000. ... …[W]e are more inclined to conclude that the arrangement more closely resembles a capital investment. … XXXXXXXXXX is not in the business of lending money to the general public or to any disinterested third parties and the loans it made were limited to its foreign related corporations. All of the proceeds from the issue of the Class A and Class B MRPS were used by Luxco 1 to make loans to XXXXXXXXXX US foreign affiliates for their US operations. … This supports the view that the share acquisition of the Class B MRPS by XXXXXXXXXX represents a capitalization of a subsidiary. ...

The Directorate indicated that FA4 appeared to have two separate businesses- a debt portfolio business, and a business of providing services to other foreign affiliates in the group – given inter alia that its services were mostly to other foreign affiliates (in contrast to the arm’s length customers of the debt portfolio business) and thus not principally services rendered to FA4’s own debt portfolio business. ... Generally, the activities of a customer are detached from the activities of a service provider and one would not necessarily view them as directly related with the active business activities of the service provider, even if the customer depends on these services in carrying on its business. … [Furthermore] the assets of FA5 Subco are not at risk or employed in support of the service business of FA4. ... Similarly, the directly related test in s. 95(2)(a)(i)(A)(IV) (applicable to the 2014 taxation year) would appear to be satisfied by FA5 Subco in relation to the debt portfolio business of LP for essentially the same reasons – and the prescribed active business earnings requirement in s. 95(2)(a)(i)(B) also appeared to be met, also for similar reasons. ...

., the Liability replaced the capital originally invested by Canco in the FA which had been used by the FA to make U.S. dollar denominated loans (the "US Loans" – representing substantially all FA's assets) to other foreign affiliates, the interest income on which was re-characterized as active business income pursuant to s. 95(2)(a) – so that s. 95(2)(i)(i)(B) applied to avoid gain to FA on the settlement of the Liability. ...

In this regard, we note the answer … from the 2003 [Annual CTF] Roundtable …: …[W]e would be prepared to allow a deduction in computing the income of a partnership for fees paid to a partner if the fees are paid in consideration for services provided to the partnership by the partner acting other than in his or her capacity as a partner (i.e., the services are not related to the ownership of the partnership interest). ...

Thus, in applying the surrogatum principle as it is relied on in Tsiaprailis … the portion of the lump sum received by the Objectors for the loss of their Coverage entitlement cannot qualify as a death benefit within the meaning of subsection 248(1) since it is the Former Employees or Retirees who received the benefit. ... Rather … the portion of the lump sum that the Opponents received that relates to the Coverage is intended to replace the insurance premiums that the Employer was required to pay under the term life insurance policy to provide life insurance coverage that the Objectors benefited from under the Plan. ...

Furthermore, that amount was paid "by reason" or "in consequence of" an obligation imposed by the employment contract …[and t]herefore … "arises" from the employment contract. Finally, it did not matter that the payer was the trustee, as it was deemed by s. 128(1)(a) to be an agent of the Employer – and it was “not unreasonable to conclude that the portion of the lump sum related to the Coverage is also an amount received as damages for services that the Objectors have rendered to the Employer.” ...

In finding that this payment was excluded under s. 20(1)(e)(iv.1)(C), CRA stated: … Rulings has a long-standing position that share value is a “similar criterion”…. ... …[Furthermore] it is your view that the Liquidity Payment was used as a substitute for a direct equity investment that the Lender originally wanted but could not acquire. … The basic parameters of the negotiations were the two different estimates of Enterprise Value. ...

. … [W]e are not convinced that a comparative analysis involving partnerships governed by the QCC by itself supports the conclusion submitted by the representatives…. ... Otherwise, for example, simply changing the province or territory of residence or the establishment would be susceptible to the triggering of complex and onerous tax consequences to the taxpayer involved. … [I]t appears to us, based in particular on the conflict of law rules, that the provincial and territorial laws of property and civil rights in Canada provide for mutual recognition of different types of entities or arrangements established under the respective jurisdictions of the various provinces and territories, thus providing an expanded base for analysis that is uniform across Canada for the purposes of applying the two-step approach. ...