Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

CRA responded: [S]subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iii) does not apply because it … was not given as an inducement to the taxpayer or the trust to undertake certain activities. … Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting … [found] that paragraph 12(1)(x) was not applicable to the amount received by the taxpayer because the taxpayer was not the one who made or incurred the expenditure …. [S]ubparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv) does not apply because it was the trust that incurred or made the Part XII.4 tax expenditure in respect of which the credit was received, not Corporation A. … … This interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(x) … appears to be consistent with … [the] Explanatory Notes ...

" While IT-283R2 has been archived … the above statement … is still valid. … In regard to the CCA class, paragraph 8 of IT-472 [states]: " … The Department considers the following property to be so included in Class 8:... ...

7 October 2020 APFF Roundtable Q. 6, 2020-0852181C6 F- Par. 5(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act-- summary under Paragraph 5(2)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Other Legislation/Constitution- Federal- Employment Insurance Act- Section 5- Subsection 5(2)- Paragraph 5(2)(b) CRA now applies a “proportionate attribution approach” in applying the s. 5(2)(b) test of “control … of … voting shares” Équipements Boifor, 2019 CAF 69 concluded that two shareholders did not have insurable employment by virtue of s. 5(2)(b) of the EIA given that they controlled more than 40% of Boifor's shares, taking into account those individuals’ shares held indirectly through a holding corporation, even though the shares were held on a 50-50 basis and no one individually held control of the holding corporation. ... CRA responded: In light of the FCA's decision, the CRA must now consider the proportionate attribution approach in similar situations to determine whether the employment of a person who controls more than 40% of the voting shares of the employing corporation is insurable. … … The proportionate attribution approach leads to the conclusion that the two shareholders each control more than 40% of Opco's voting shares (50% of 100%) for the purposes of EIA paragraph 5(2)(b). … The approach remains the same where the shareholders held 51% and 49% of the voting shares of Holdco, respectively. ...

A under subsection 74.2(1) …. By virtue of paragraph 40(3.6)(b), the amount of the Denied Loss … could, however, be added to … the ACB, to Mr. B, of each of the common shares of the capital stock of Opco that is owned by him immediately following the disposition …. … [A subsequent] taxable capital gain or an allowable capital loss [realized by Mr. B] on the disposition of a common share … of Opco … would not be realized or sustained by Mr. ...

In accordance with [Reg.] 4901(1) … a prescribed investment for a registered investment … is a qualified investment for … a registered retirement savings plan ("RRSP"), registered retirement income fund ("RRIF") and deferred profit sharing plan ("DPSP"), respectively. The kinds of property that are qualified investments for an RRSP, RRIF or a DPSP are described in … [ss.] 146(1), 146.3(1) and section 204 … [and Reg.] 4900 …. ... In addition [see] paragraph 21 of … IT-320R3 …. ...

In accordance with [Reg.] 4901(1) … a prescribed investment for a registered investment … is a qualified investment for … a registered retirement savings plan ("RRSP"), registered retirement income fund ("RRIF") and deferred profit sharing plan ("DPSP"), respectively. The kinds of property that are qualified investments for an RRSP, RRIF or a DPSP are described in … [ss.] 146(1), 146.3(1) and section 204 … [and Reg.] 4900 …. ... In addition [see] paragraph 21 of … IT-320R3 …. ...

Our position is supported by … Berkovic … 83 DTC 335 and …. Mitosinka …. ...

The Directorate stated: [T]he term “reasonably attributable” … denotes … a direct causal connection … between the OCNP and the PE taking in account all the applicable facts of the case. … [Per] E9807035 … the taxpayer should attribute a portion of its gross revenues to each permanent establishment in recognition of the value of the ancillary services provided by that establishment. … [W]here a taxpayer has made an allocation under subsection 403(4) and the taxpayer’s approach is reasonable, the CRA should not require the taxpayer to use a different method of allocation. … [T]he allocation of the OCNP based on where the policies are underwritten … appears to be a reasonable method. Similarly, allocation of the OCNP on some other basis, such as where the contracts are negotiated or serviced … may also be reasonable …. ...

3 July 2019 Internal T.I. 2019-0791521I7- Tuition tax credit- University outside Canada-- summary under Subparagraph 118.5(1)(b)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 118.5- Subsection 118.5(1)- Paragraph 118.5(1)(b)- Subparagraph 118.5(1)(b)(i) CRA will follow Fortnum in “factually similar” situations In response to a request as to its interpretation of s. 118.5(1)(b) following Fortnum, CRA first noted that, regarding the attendance of the taxpayer in that case at a 10- week summer semester consisting of 11 courses each of one or two weeks’ duration, “the court applied the three consecutive week requirement to the summer semester as a whole, rather than to each individual course in the semester,” and then stated: Our interpretation of subparagraph 118.5(1)(b)(i) … as explained in paragraph 2.10 of … S1-F2-C2.. has generally not changed as a result of … Fortnum. … [T]his case was heard … under the Informal Procedure … [and] do[es] not have precedential value. ...

CCRA responded: [T]he situation … is similar to … Grenier …. Consequently, subject to additional facts to the contrary, … the interest paid … could be deductible pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c). ...