Search - 辐射监测仪 校准

CRA stated: In the case of a corporation, some of whose activities are employee lease-out services, that is, that the employee's services are retained by that corporation but the employee's duties are performed, in whole or in part, for another organization …, it is necessary to determine whether the corporation is carrying on a separate business … because … the employment income of an Indian from each of the businesses of such a corporation is … a separate property for the purposes of … section 87 …. ... The place where the employee lives, the place of residence of the employer and the place where the duties of an employment are performed are usually important connecting factors …. Where the location from which the business is actually directed and administered is located on a reserve, the employer will generally be considered to reside on that reserve. … As we noted in Employee Leasing: Tax-Planning Arrangements Based on Section 87, the location of the employer on a reserve is not a connecting factor strong enough, on its own, to exempt the employment income from tax where an Indian is employed through an on-reserve employer but performs the duties of employment off-reserve. ...

. … [W]here it can be determined … that the option is granted in consideration for services that are to be rendered after the time of grant and upon the fulfillment of a condition or contingency, the income should instead be recognized when the services are rendered, the amount is quantifiable and the rights are unrestricted. … [Here] the vesting of the option is linked to the completion of the long-term research project. As such, it may be difficult to conclude that the income is earned before the vesting date under the particular arrangement. … [G]enerally, it is at the time where the services have been rendered and the contingency has been fulfilled, that the FMV of the underlying share over the aggregate of the exercise price of the option should be included in income under subsection 9(1). … … Where the facts indicate that the incremental value represents part of the consideration received by the taxpayer for consulting services rendered, the incremental value should generally be treated as business income for purposes of the Act. ...

In finding that the partnership would not satisfy various requirements of IT-426R, para. 2 for use of the cost-recovery method, including the requirement of subpara. 2(e)- that “[t]he vendor submits, with his return of income for the year in which the shares were disposed of, a copy of the sale agreement”- CRA stated: … T5013 forms … do … not constitute a return of income for the purpose of [subpara. 2(e)] …. ...

CRA stated: In the case of a corporation, some of whose activities are employee lease-out services, that is, that the employee's services are retained by that corporation but the employee's duties are performed, in whole or in part, for another organization …, it is necessary to determine whether the corporation is carrying on a separate business … because … the employment income of an Indian from each of the businesses of such a corporation is … a separate property for the purposes of … section 87 …. ...

. … … Pollon determined that such [hatchery] activity did constitute farming for the purposes of the Act. ...

A), who hold 80% and 20%, respective interests in, and devote themselves full time to the business of, a general partnership ("SENC"), transfer 1% of their units to a corporation whose common shares are owned by them on an 80% /20%.basis – and they and the two other employees become employees of the corporation. ... CRA stated: [Our] long-standing position … is that subsection 103(1) or (1.1) could apply if the allocation of partnership income does not take into account the contribution of each partner. … … [W]e are of the view that, on the face of it, the allocation of income does not take into account the contribution of each partner. Consequently … the Agreement could result in the application of subsections 103(1) or 103(1.1). ...

18 December 2009 External T.I. 2009-0313121E5 F- Sommes reçues par un associé qui se retire-- summary under Paragraph 96(1.1)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 96- Subsection 96(1.1)- Paragraph 96(1.1)(a) s. 98.1(1)(a) applies where an agreement to make a payment in compensation for partnership goodwill, cf. where agreement to allocate income Upon the taxpayer’s withdrawal from a partnership, the partnership agreement (the “Original Agreement”) provided for the payment to him or her of lump sum amounts, equal to an average of the former partner’s annual partnership income (or ½ that sum in some circumstances), to be paid as compensation for a share of the partnership goodwill. Respecting whether s. 96(1.1) applied, CRA stated: [W]e do not believe that the compensatory provision in the Original Agreement can help us determine the nature of the amounts you received … [and] it is an agreement, written or unwritten, between a person who ceases to be a partner and the other members of the partnership that determines which of subsection 96(1.1) or section 98.1 applies. … [I]f a person who ceases to be a partner, demonstrates that the person contributed to the creation of goodwill and receives payments in respect thereof, the payments could be consideration for the former partner's rights to partnership property and would, therefore, be payments of capital. … … A member who ceases to be a member of a partnership has an income interest in the partnership under subsection 96(1.1) if, inter alia, all the members agree to allocate a portion of the partnership's income to the member who has ceased to be a member of the partnership. ...

Subject to certain exceptions under subsection 4(3) … subsection 4(2) … specifically denies the deduction of items in sections 60 to 64 … in determining income from a particular source. Consequently, a deduction allowed under paragraph 60(s) … is not tied to a particular source …. The amount determined under paragraph 3(c) … which forms variable F of the “non-capital loss” definition in subsection 111(8) … will never be negative, and therefore deductions described in Subdivision E of the Act cannot create or increase the amount of a non-capital loss. ...

CRA indicated that: “the creation of a Secondary Suite, either within or detached from a Homeowner’s principal residence, to be used for earning rental income will generally trigger a deemed disposition pertaining to the portion of the Property so converted pursuant to subparagraph 45(1)(c)(ii)”; the homeowner could make an election pursuant to s. 45(2) to defer the recognition of any resulting gain to a later taxation year; for purposes of the principal residence exemption, “if two housing units can be enjoyed and ordinarily inhabited separate from each other without access to the other (that is, if each unit is a self-contained unit with its own entrance, kitchen and bathroom) … they will be considered separate housing units” even if “the housing units are part of a single structure or are not on separate legal lots” – so that on disposing the homeowner would have to choose which of the two units to designate as principal residence for each applicable year, as discussed below; and although the ordinarily-inhabited condition under the principal residence definition would not generally be met for the Secondary Suite while it was rented to third parties, “[w]here a subsection 45(2) election is made by a taxpayer for a property that is the subject of a change in use, the property can qualify as the taxpayer’s principal residence for up to four taxation years during which the election remains in force, even if during those years the housing unit was not ordinarily inhabited by the taxpayer or one of the … family members ….” – so that the homeowner would be able to choose for such a year to designate the Secondary Suite rather than the balance of the property as that taxpayer’s principal residence. ...

. … … Mr. and Ms. X will not be able to avail themselves of the HBP rules …. ...