Search - 阿里拍卖 司法拍卖

CRA stated: Each of the Individuals carries on the day-to-day management of the Operator as would an officer or employee … [and] the Individuals are all specified shareholders of their management corporation …. ...

The Excise and GST/HST Rulings Directorate queried the view in 2014-0530691E5, respecting language, similar to that quoted above, appearing in ITA s. 8(1)(i)(i), that: a professional status would generally have to be acknowledged in the statute itself to satisfy the “recognized by statute” condition in subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) …. After stating that Montgomery: clarified that the phrase “recognized by statute” should be afforded a broad interpretation, and that “recognized by statute” does not necessarily mean that a professional status was incorporated, created, or regulated by a particular statute and noting that 2014-0530691E5 was somewhat inconsistent with 2012-0444181M4, the Income Tax Rulings Directorate concluded: [W]e would agree with your views that for purposes of the meaning of the phrase “professional status recognized by statute” … applying a textual, contextual and purposive analysis, a “professional status” can be “recognized by a statute” for purposes of subparagraph 8(1)(i)(i) … even if it is only recognized in the supporting regulations of an act. However … where a “professional status” is only acknowledged in an organization’s bylaws, the “professional status” would not likely be considered “recognized by statute” …. ...

CCRA responded: If the GST/HST collected and remitted is in respect of a benefit included in an employee's income pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a), (e), (k) or (l) … the corporation may deduct it in computing its income from a business or property. … [I]f [instead] the GST/HST collected and remitted is in respect of a benefit included in a shareholder's income under subsection 15(1) … the corporation cannot deduct it in computing its income from a business or property since it would not be considered to have been incurred for the purpose of earning its income from the business or property. ...

. … As a result, the TFSA trust would be considered to have borrowed money”. … However, where an overdraft is created in respect of fees charged to the TFSA but which remain unpaid… [this] would not constitute borrowing of money or other property for the purposes of paragraph 146.2(2)(f). … Turning to the cashless exercise of warrants, CRA stated: [T]he broker advanced the funds to the TFSA trust necessary to exercise the warrants in question. ...

The Directorate stated: Since the wording of subsection 105(1) refers simply to a "taxpayer", we are of the opinion that this provision may apply to a taxpayer who has received a benefit from a trust of which the taxpayer is neither a beneficiary nor a trustee, even if the taxpayer is not related, directly or indirectly, to a beneficiary or trustee of the trust …. Subsection 105(1) can therefore apply to Canco, notwithstanding Canco not being a beneficiary …. ...

Before [any] corresponding adjustment is made … the conditions of paragraph IV(6) should still be met since Parentco is considered to have derived an amount (that is not disregarded) through US Sisterco LLC. More specifically … from a US tax perspective, Parentco, will have a reduced cost of inventory that is derived through the purchases of Sisterco LLC from Canco. ... Either way … that amount [is not] “disregarded” for US tax purposes …. ...

. … [A]lthough the Policy is property acquired for the purpose of earning income from property … these premiums are not deductible in computing the taxpayer's income because of the special rules applicable to life insurance policies. ...

. … [I]n determining whether [NR1’s] partnership interest is excluded property … any assets held by the partnership on which income was or would be recharacterized as active would qualify as excluded property under paragraph (c). ... The Directorate went on to find that if the partnership interest disposition date was 6, the cash held at that time did not qualify as an active business asset (noting that it “being used in a continuation of the active business activities undertaken by FORP, as it had never carried on an active business”); and that on the dissolution date no property was held – so that, either way, para. ...

This is in contrast to a subsection 66.1(2) deduction … [which] cannot result in the preservation (or creation or increase) of a non-capital loss. … [E]ven though deductions under subsection 66.7(3) (as well as under subsections 66.7(4) and (5)) might effectively preserve all or part of a current year loss as discussed above, they cannot, in and of themselves, create or increase a taxpayer’s non-capital loss. ...

After noting that “the weekly blood tests in this case would likely be considered an activity that would be included in the time spent administering therapy” since the “weekly blood tests were required to ensure that the proper Phe level was being maintained,” the Directorate stated: It is … a question of fact whether the determination of a specific activity, for example a weekly blood test, can be included in the time spent administering therapy as described in paragraph 118.1(1)(a.1) of the Act. … What would be considered essential to one person’s impairment may not be considered essential to another. ...