Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

. … In the example submitted, the CRA would not consider a Class A share … to be identical to a Class B share …. ...

. … [T]he CRA is committed to: Arriving at reasonable assessing positions that are timely and transparent; Communication to taxpayers when adopting positions that deviate from long standing interpretations, especially when there are publicly stated positions … CRA also referenced its “commitment … to resolve disputes at the earliest possible stage.” ...

CRA responded: An “interest” in the well or accumulation … requires that the payer must have a right to take production from the well or accumulation. ... Of course, the conditions in paragraph (d) of the [CRP] definition … must be met …. ...

., section 18 and 67 …), the reimbursement of the accounting fees paid by Advisor A to Client B would generally be deductible under subsection 9(1) … in computing Advisor A’s income from business for the year in which the amount is incurred. Client B would include the reimbursement in income pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(x) …[, a] treatment [which] would also apply if Client B did not acquire the life insurance policy. ...

After noting that the case was not appealed because in the result it was favourable and it was only an informal procedure case, CRA then summarized the facts, stating that the Oka shareholders engaged in "three avoidance transactions" (TaxInterpretations translation) for appropriating the surplus of Oka which, in December 2004, had already "... and was in the course of liquidating the remainder of its assets:" First, on March 1, 2005, there was an internal rollover of their shares in the capital stock of Oka in order to crystallize in the adjusted cost base ("ACB") of new shares, the excess of the fair market value ("FMV") of the transferred shares over their ACB, thereby realizing a capital gain in respect of which the capital gains deduction in section 110.6 was not claimed. The second transaction, effected on March 15, 2005, was to roll those new shares in the capital stock of Oka to a new corporation (9149-7321 Quebec Inc., hereafter « Quebec Inc. ») in exchange for shares of two classes in the capital of Quebec Inc.: the first class of shares having a low PUC and an ACB equal to their FMV (the "1971 FMV Shares") and the second class of shares having a high PUC (which was the purpose of the second transaction) and a high ACB equal to their FMV (the "Stripping Shares"). ... The CRA continues of the view that ITA subsection 84(2) should have applied in this case especially by reason of … MacDonald …. ...

11 October 2013 Roundtable, 2013-0495281C6 F- Question 9- APFF Round Table-- summary under Paragraph 212(1)(l) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 212- Subsection 212(1)- Paragraph 212(1)(l) transfer to RRSP or RRIF of surviving non-resident spouse: SIN required; payment can be made directly to RRSP/RRIF of surviving spouse in accordance with joint instructions even where no specific non-will designation is made Has the position in 2002-0141355- that an RRSP can be transferred to the RRSP of a surviving non-resident spouse, who can open an RRSP, even if he or she does not have a Social Insurance Number ("SIN") – changed? ... In such a situation, subsection 146(8.1) deems the amount paid to the deceased annuitant's legal representative as being received by the surviving spouse as a benefit that is a refund of premiums, and not by the legal representative, to the extent that the amount would have been a refund of premiums if it had been paid under the plan to the beneficiary spouse of the annuitant's estate and that it is designated jointly by the legal representative and the surviving spouse in prescribed form T2019 filed with the Minister. … In this particular situation, it is our view that the holding of a SIN by the non-resident spouse is necessary in order to proceed with the registration of an RRSP of which he or she is the annuitant and to file the information return required by virtue of subsection 214.1(1) of the Income Tax Regulations (the "ITR"). Indeed, it is our understanding that a surviving spouse is required, pursuant to subsections 237(1.1) and 214.1(1) ITR, to provide a SIN to the issuer of an RRSP who, in the year of the transfer of a refund of premiums to which paragraph 60(l) applies, must complete an information return in prescribed form with respect to amounts paid as contributions under the plan. … Our positions relating to the transfer of a RRIF to a non-resident surviving spouse are similar to those … above regarding the transfer of an RRSP at death. … With respect to the payment made as a result of the death of the spouse of a non-resident who has not been designated as a beneficiary in the RRSP contract but who is the beneficiary of the deceased spouse's estate, we are of the view that the tax-neutral transfer provisions in subparagraphs 212(1)(l)(i) and (ii) generally cannot be applied since the payment should generally be made under the deceased annuitant's RRSP to the legal representative of the deceased annuitant and not directly transferred to an RRSP of which the surviving spouse is the annuitant. ...

. … Subsection 146.3(6.1) [as well as para. (a) of “designated benefit”] has no application in this case since the legal representative receives nothing under the RRIF of the deceased last annuitant. … [S]ince Mrs. B died before amounts were paid under the RRIF to the legal representative of the deceased last annuitant … the conditions of paragraph (a) cannot be met. ... (b) of the “designated benefit” definition: Where … an amount from the RRIF of the deceased last annuitant is paid to the estate of the deceased and an Eligible Recipient is a beneficiary of the estate (as legatee or heir), the amount is not paid to the Eligible Recipient "out of or under the fund" and this situation does not comply with paragraph (b)…. ...

CRA responded: The excess corporate holdings regime … places limits on a private foundation’s share ownership that also takes into account the holdings of any relevant person (defined in subsection 149.1(1) to generally mean a person not dealing at arm's length with the foundation). ... More specifically, subsection 188.1(3.5) deems a private foundation (or, in certain circumstances, a relevant person in respect of the foundation) to own shares that are actually held by a trust, in proportion to the value of the foundation's proportionate interest in the trust, where the … conditions in subsection 188.1(3.3) are met at a particular time in a taxation year …. …Whether subsections 188.1(3.3) to (3.5) apply to a particular situation is a mixed question of fact and law …. ...

For example, in Scenario 1, the FX rate is US $1 = CDN $1 at Time 1 and US $1 = CDN $1.2 at Time 2, and at Time 2, Can Opco pays a dividend of $120 to Can Holdco. And in Scenario 2, the exchange rates are US $1 = CDN $1.2 at Time 1 and US $1 = CDN $1 at Times 1 and 2, respectively- and at Time 2 Can Opco pays a $100 dividend to Can Holdco. ...

. … The CRA is [now] of the view that pursuant to subsection 40(3.61): the subsection 164(6) election applies first, and the capital loss available for the election is determined without reference to subsection 40(3.4) or 40(3.6), and the stop loss rules in subsections 40(3.4) or 40(3.6) apply to any capital loss of the estate that is not the subject of the subsection 164(6) election. … Paragraph 164(6)(a) limits the amount of the election to the net amount of the estate’s capital losses and capital gains, or $970,000. ... A similar result would occur where the estate makes the subsection 164(6) election for an amount that is less than the result of the paragraph 164(6)(a) calculation (for example, if the estate elected for less than $970,000). … [T]he relief provided by subsection 40(3.61) is only in respect of a disposition of a share …. ...