Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

Furthermore … the amount of Holdco's GRIP is $400,000, since it seems reasonable to us to consider, in this situation, that the $400,000 dividend that Holdco received from Opco during 2001 is attributable to an amount described in Element A of the GRIP formula in respect of Opco. ...

Accordingly … only the taxable capital of the CCPC (Xco) should be considered for purposes of the proposed amendments to subsection 125(5.1) since the facts submitted indicate that the associated corporation (Yco) does not carry on business through a permanent establishment in Canada within the meaning of subsection 400(2) of the ITR. ...

Thus, where an organization issues a reimbursement for an eligible expense that was incurred in the previous taxation year … that reimbursement reduces the amount of the eligible expense and that a receipt must be issued accordingly for the year in which the expense was incurred. ...

Therefore … CanCo’s LRIP/GRIP balances (as applicable) would not be affected [and] subsection 214(16) would not alter the character of the income received by ForCo for FAPI purposes. ...

. … In addition, where a worker uses an automobile owned by the organization, not only for volunteer activities, but also for commuting to and from work, we are also of the view that this benefit does not give rise to tax consequences, provided that the cost of the automobile is reasonable and that it is the only personal use made of it. ...

Consequently … a non-resident may offset a taxable capital gain on the disposition of TCP (other than treaty-protected property) with a net capital loss on the deemed disposition of property that was not TCP that arose when the taxpayer was a resident of Canada. ...

CRA also provided a s. 55(2) ruling based on a representation that the only purpose “of the dividends on Newco’s Preferred Shares … is to provide a reasonable return….” ...

CRA responded: if, in the year of death, a taxpayer has a net capital loss or any unused net capital losses carried forward from prior years, the special rules in subsection 111(2) concerning the application of paragraphs 111(1)(b) and 111(1.1)(b), as they are to be read under these circumstances, allow the deduction of such losses (less the amount of any capital gains exemption claimed by the taxpayer …) up to the amount of the taxpayer’s available income from all sources for the year of death and the immediately preceding year. ...

. … We are of the view that the amount of the class action provision relates to policies in the context of claims since it is by virtue of the rights arising from the XXXXXXXXXX insurance policies that the insureds who suffered a loss were able to bring the class action. ...

. … [W]hether the provision of a meal or the reimbursement of meal expenses is primarily for the benefit of the employer is a question of fact that can only be resolved after an examination of all the facts of each particular situation. ...