Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

CRA responded: [T]he Minister is not required to provide … relief under subsections 220(3.1) and (3.2), and it is not the CRA's policy to automatically waive penalties or accept a request for an extension of time or a request to revoke an election by virtue of subsections 220(3).(1) and (3.2). … [A]s a matter of first impression, it cannot be assumed that a request for an extension of time under subsection 220(3.2) to file an election under subsection 184(3) would necessarily be denied in a particular situation similar to the given hypothetical situation. ...

CRA responded: [Although] the CRA effectively presumes that the three shareholders are acting together to control the corporation and therefore form a controlling group … the CRA may consider that the three shareholders do not form a group of persons who control the corporation if it is demonstrated that there is no common bond or interest between the three shareholders or that they are not acting together for the purpose of controlling the corporation. Whether a group of unrelated persons controls a corporation and, if so, the composition of that group, in situations where a private corporation has more than three unrelated shareholders, none of whom individually controls the corporation, is a question that the CRA generally determines after a review and analysis of all the facts, legal documents and circumstances …. ...

. … In addition, paragraphs 7(1.3)(a) and (b) include presumptions with respect to the timing of the acquisition of such securities. As well, pursuant to paragraph 7(1.3)(a), "a taxpayer holding both deferral and non-deferral securities is considered to dispose of the non-deferral securities first.” … Depending on the circumstances, the application of the presumptions in subsection 7(1.3) could result in the requirement of paragraph 110(1)(d.01) in respect of the acquisition of securities in the year of disposition not being satisfied. ...

. … [T]he relation between the use regularly made by the taxpayer of the property for gaining or producing income and the use regularly made of the property for other purposes had not changed at that time [of the move]. Therefore, there was no change in use of the property for the purposes of paragraph 45(1)(c) at the beginning of 2016 by reason of the move of the individual. … [R]enovations by a taxpayer to only one of the two units in a situation such as that described would not in itself have the effect of changing the relation between the use regularly made by the taxpayer of the property for gaining or producing income and the use regularly made of the property for other purposes. ...

. … Generally, the CRA considers a rate based on kilometerage to be reasonable if it corresponds to the rate prescribed under ITR section 7306…[provided the] employee pays all expenses related to the motor vehicle. However, a rate different from that prescribed may be considered reasonable in light of the particular facts of a situation. … [T]he CRA does not have a specific policy on per-kilometre allowances for an electric motor vehicle. ...

LLC with a single-member regarded U.S. corporation, its earnings should be computed under Canadian income tax law under Reg. 5907(1) – earnings- s. ... LLCs for all taxation years of these LLCs that ended on or before November 29, 2016. … T]he earnings of a disregarded U.S. ...

Lola, 2013 SCC 5), it nonetheless “is not impossible for the annuitant to determine to create rights under a written separation agreement between the annuitant and the annuitant’s common-law partner or former common-law partner relating to the division of property ” – and that “such an agreement could be concluded at the time of separation, whether or not a common-law union agreement providing for the rights of each in the event of the union's failure had been previously signed.” ...

B died before amounts were paid under the RRIF to the legal representative of the deceased last annuitant … the conditions of paragraph (a) [of "designated benefit"] cannot be met. Where … an amount from the RRIF of the deceased last annuitant is paid to the estate of the deceased and an Eligible Recipient [as described in s. 146(1)- refund of premiums] 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)…. ...

Where it is not, however, it should still be possible to file the T1134 on time but with some missing information – but bearing in mind that penalties could thereby apply, subject to relief in the reasonable efforts exception of s. 162(5)(a), or the due diligence exception of s. 233.5(c.2). CRA will consider a request for relief in the form of extensions and waivers of penalties on a case-by-case basis – although it would expect that the Minister will require more than “they just shortened the deadline from 15 to six months!” ...

. … Where the safe harbours do not apply in a particular case, the general underlying rationale is that in such circumstances, the most appropriate test for determining whether the income of a specified individual from a related business should be excluded from split income should be based on the general test of whether the amount received is a reasonable return. … [I]n most cases, the distinction between whether income is from the provision of services or is other income should be clear. ...