Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

25 February 2002 Internal T.I. 2001-0114167 F- DOMMAGES- DISCRIMINATION-- summary under Retiring Allowance Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 248- Subsection 248(1)- Retiring Allowance compensation under the CHRA for lost wages and expenses would be a retiring allowance – reasonable (e.g., under $5,000) compensation for pain and suffering would be non-taxable After filing a complaint pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “CHRA”), the taxpayer received a lump sum from his employer pursuant to an out-of-court settlement that did not allocate the amount. ... …[W]e have … asked … for information concerning … human rights at the provincial level. We found that … human rights tribunals in several provinces (some of which had a maximum limit for general damages of less than $20,000 and some of which had no maximum limit at all) generally only awarded amounts below the maximum limit for general damages. ...

CCRA stated: [T]he conversion or exchange rights attached to the newly acquired Class A shares … and permitting the exchange of such shares for Class B shares … would technically constitute a "right to acquire" the substituted property …. These conversion or exchange rights would therefore be deemed to be property identical to the Class B shares … previously disposed of by the Taxpayer. Consequently, the loss incurred by the Taxpayer and resulting from the disposition of the Class B shares … would be a "superficial loss" …. ...

21 November 2002 External T.I. 2002-0156565 F- INTERETS HYPOTHEQUE SUR RESIDENCE-- summary under Subsection 20(3) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 20- Subsection 20(3) interest on new home mortgage deductible if used to pay off mortgage on old home that had been used for income-producing purposes On a sale of the taxpayer's home, the mortgage loan for which the interest was deductible pursuant to s. 20(1)(c) because the loan proceeds had been used to acquire a commercial rental building, must be repaid. ... 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). ...

5 December 2002 Internal T.I. 2002-0155667 F- DEDUCTIBILITE DES INTERETS CAPITALISEES-- summary under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 20- Subsection 20(1)- Paragraph 20(1)(c)- Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) capitalized simple interest on loan to acquire common shares was deductible if reasonable expectation of dividends An employee of a CCPC was lent money by the corporation to acquire common shares of the corporation. ...

25 January 2002 External T.I. 2001-0112985- EBP-- summary under Paragraph 7(3)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 7- Subsection 7(3)- Paragraph 7(3)(b) EBP purchasing treasury shares of related corp Would s. 7 apply to an employee benefit plan ("EBP") thatacquires treasury shares of a corporation that is related to the employer who contributes to the EBP? ...

25 February 2002 Internal T.I. 2001-0114167 F- DOMMAGES- DISCRIMINATION-- summary under Paragraph 3(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 3- Paragraph 3(a) awards by human rights tribunals for pain and suffering re wrongful termination often are under $5,000 Regarding what portion a settlement of a claim made under the Canadian Human Rights Act should be treated as compensation for pain and suffering, CCRA indicated that it had not examined the awards pattern of the federal Human Rights Tribunal in this regard, but noted: Although the maximum amount provided for in paragraph 53(2)(e) … is $20,000, it is possible that, in similar cases, the Tribunal may award only a relatively small amount compared to this maximum. …[W]e have … asked … for information concerning … human rights at the provincial level. We found that … human rights tribunals in several provinces (some of which had a maximum limit for general damages of less than $20,000 and some of which had no maximum limit at all) generally only awarded amounts below the maximum limit for general damages. ...

20 March 2002 External T.I. 2001-0113815 F- TVQ SUR PRIMES D'ASSURANCE- SALAIRE-- summary under Paragraph 6(1)(f) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 6- Subsection 6(1)- Paragraph 6(1)(f) employee would not be credited with a contribution on paying Quebec sales tax on wage loss plan premiums/ the employer paying them would not be a contribution Would the benefits under a wage-loss insurance plan whose premiums are paid in full by the employees remain non-taxable where the employer pays the 9% Quebec sales tax on those premiums and, if the employees pay the tax, would this represent a contribution? ... CCRA responded: [T]he insurance premium paid by the employee does not constitute a contribution paid by the employee under the wage-loss replacement plan. … Consequently, the amount of sales tax would not reduce the amount received from this plan, which is otherwise taxable. … [T]he payment of sales tax on wage-loss insurance premiums by the employer [would not] represent a contribution by the employer under the wage-loss insurance plan for the purposes of determining whether a wage-loss insurance plan is a plan to which an employer has contributed for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(f). … [I]f the employee has a contractual or legal obligation to pay all wage-loss insurance premiums, the employer's payment of sales tax on such premiums would not make the benefits from the wage-loss insurance plan taxable. However … the employer's payment of sales tax on insurance premiums [is] a taxable benefit to the employee pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) …. ...

2 December 2002 External T.I. 2002-0151325 F- FRAIS DEPLACEMENT-- summary under Paragraph 8(1)(h.1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 8- Subsection 8(1)- Paragraph 8(1)(h.1) tacit requirement could not be invoked where the collective agreement explicitly assigned responsibility for travel expenses to the employer (who refused to pay) Although the collective agreement required the employer to pay the employees’ travel expenses, it refused to do so, so that the employees incurred travel expenses to get from the employer's place of business to the various worksites and from one worksite to another. ... Nevertheless, since it is clearly established in the collective agreement that travel expenses are to be paid by the employer, it is not possible to invoke the concept of tacit or implicit agreement as invoked in … Moore … and … Betz... [which] determined that travel was implicitly required as part of the taxpayers' employment in order to properly perform their duties and obtain a favourable performance appraisal. … ...

21 March 2002 Internal T.I. 2001-010133A F- VALIDITE D'UN JUGEMENT- PENSION ALIMENTAIRE-- summary under Support Amount Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 56.1- Subsection 56.1(4)- Support Amount where couple reconcile and then separate a second time, child custody thereafter paid will not qualify as support amounts if no new agreement or judgment Monsieur and Madame separated and Monsieur started paying child support to Madame pursuant to a judgment rendered by the Quebec Superior Court. ... M.L., 1996 J.Q. no. 5103 … established that support and custody judgments lose all effect when the parents resume living together … [and] that these judgments would not take effect if the parents subsequently separated again. … Since the amounts were paid under a new agreement, which was only a verbal agreement between the parties, that arose following the second separation, the amounts paid by Monsieur do not meet the definition of "support amount" in subsection 56.1(4) …. ...

4 April 2002 External T.I. 2001-0103735 F- Fiducie exclusive au conjoint et ass. ... Consequently … the shares of Opco owned by the Trust are deemed to be beneficially owned by Ms. A for the purposes of the Act …. ...