Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

Groupe Honco finding of multiple "main" purposes (pp. 9-10) In Groupe Honco (… 2013 FCA 128)…[t]he FCA said, "The phrase 'one of the main purposes' is unambiguous and implies that a taxpayer may have more than one main motive in acquiring shares. ... " … (The UK decisions referred to are Prudential Plc v. Revenue & Customs, [2007] UKSPC 636; IRC v. Trustees of the SEMA Group Pensions Scheme, [2002] STC 276 (Ch. D); IRC v. ...

[f.n. 102 aff’d 2002 ABCA 5]. … In EarthFirst Canada Inc. (Re), [f.n. 103 2009 ABQB 316]… the court confirmed… in Merit Energy. … On the basis of these authorities and the amended CCAA, it appears that any FTS holders' claims that arise pursuant to an indemnity provided by a PBC in an FTS subscription agreement will be treated as equity for CCAA purposes. ...

Kirby, "Vendor Planning for Private Corporations: Select Issues", 2017 Conference Report, (Canadian Tax Foundation), 11:1-28-- summary under Subsection 83(2) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 83- Subsection 83(2) Ability to use s. 84.1 deemed dividend as capital dividend (p. 11:22) [l]n a 2002 technical interpretation, the CRA found that a purchaser corporation is unable to elect under subsection 83(2) with respect to a dividend that it is deemed to have been paid pursuant to paragraph 84.1(1)(b). [fn 54: … 2002-0128955]… In our view, [this] interpretation is incorrect when the transferor already owns shares of the corporation at the time of the transfer because subsection 84(7) would deem the dividend to be payable and, through such prior share ownership, the transferor would clearly be a shareholder of the corporation. … [2006-0183851E5] found that such a deemed dividend may properly be the subject of an election under subsection 83(2), provided that the recipient of the deemed dividend under section 84.1 owns shares of any class of shares of the capital stock of the payer corporation immediately before the dividend is deemed to be paid or payable. ...

. … [I]n British Columbia, the restriction only applies to "a record evidencing indebtedness of the person to whom shares are to be issued" (i.e., a promissory note issued by the subscriber)…. ... MNR [fn 16: …92 D.T.C. 2123…] ….. Nullification was used in the recent Federal Court of Appeal case St Arnaud v. ... Takla Star Resources Ltd., [2002] A.J. No. 422, 2002 ABCA 84, aff'g [2001] A.J. ...

. … [I]n British Columbia,, the restriction only applies to "a record evidencing indebtedness of the person to whom shares are to be issued" (i.e., a promissory note issued by the subscriber)…. ... MNR [fn 16: …92 D.T.C. 2123…] ….. Nullification was used in the recent Federal Court of Appeal case St Arnaud v. ... Takla Star Resources Ltd., [2002] A.J. No. 422, 2002 ABCA 84, aff'g [2001] A.J. ...

Jack Silverson, Matias Milet, Christopher Anderson, Andrew Spiro, "Canada’s Reportable Transaction Rules: A Measured Approach to Adviser Reporting", Tax Notes International, Vol. 111, No. 29, July 15, 2023-- summary under Subparagraph 237.3(2)(c)(ii) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 237.3- Subsection 237.3(2)- Paragraph 237.2(3)(c)- Subparagraph 237.3(2)(c)(ii) expanded reportable transaction rules should not impose reporting obligations on lawyers who negotiate contractual protection for a conventional fee Under the revised reportable transaction rules, is a lawyer who assisted in negotiating contractual terms providing for contractual protection as contemplated by the contractual protection hallmark in s. 237.3(1) – reportable transaction – (c) and who charged a fee for such legal work obligated to report on the basis that the hours-based fee “is a fee … in respect of any … transaction … that is in respect of contractual protection,” as set out in s. s. 237.3(2)(c)(ii)? ... It would be inappropriate to give the phrase “in respect of” its widest possible meaning (which Nowegijick described as “words of the widest possible scope”) and, instead (having regard to this phrase having been interpreted more narrowly in other cases to accord with the context and purposes of the applicable provisions – see, e.g., Sarvanis, 2002 SCC 28, and Weyerhaeuser), a narrower interpretation of s. 237.3(2)(c)(ii), according with the context and purpose of the reportable transaction rules, is required. ...

.-- summary under Paragraph 5901(2)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Regulations- Regulation 5901- Subsection 5901(2)- Paragraph 5901(2)(b) Retroactive election (p. 3) … Bill C-48 permits taxpayers to electively apply Regulation 5901(2)(b) (together as a package with subsections 90(2) and 93(1.11)) retroactively to foreign affiliate distributions made after December 20, 2002. Choice between surplus and basis grind (p. 3) By electing to apply Regulation 5901(2)(b) retroactively, and by thereby electing to apply subsection 90(2) retroactively to deem each post-December 20, 2002 foreign affiliate distribution to be a dividend (regardless whether it was in fact paid as a dividend or a capital distribution), taxpayers can either (i) choose to treat the particular distribution as a dividend that accessed the relevant surplus balances of the distributing foreign affiliate (by not further electing to apply Regulation 5901(2)(b) to that particular dividend or deemed dividend), or (ii) choose to treat the particular distribution as a pre-acquisition surplus dividend that accessed the basis of the foreign affiliate before potentially dipping into the relevant surplus balances of the distributing foreign affiliate (by further electing to apply Regulation 5901(2)(b) to that particular dividend or deemed dividend). ...

Kirby, "Vendor Planning for Private Corporations: Select Issues", 2017 Conference Report, (Canadian Tax Foundation), 11:1-28-- summary under Subsection 129(1) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 129- Subsection 129(1) Potential generation of dividend refund with s. 84.1(1) dividend (p. 11:23) [T] he 2002 technical interpretation discussed above … stated that the technical requirements for triggering a refund of RDTPH are not met when the dividend is deemed to have been paid pursuant to section 84.1… It may be credibly argued that the only sensible result is that a deemed dividend arising under section 84.1 should give rise to the recovery of RDTOH because a dividend cannot be paid except on a class of shares, because the person receiving a dividend is a shareholder, and because the right to receive dividends is attached to a share…. The individual will own shares of Newco when the dividend arises, and therefore it could be argued that the deemed dividend under section 84.1 should be considered to be paid on these shares. … In common parlance, a “dividend” is considered to be a distribution of corporate profits to its shareholders, and therefore it could be argued that in order for a deemed or fictitious dividend to arise, there must be deemed or fictitious shares on which the dividend is paid. ...

In 2002 the Italian subsidiary distributed dividends to its French parent company, withholding a 5 percent tax under article 10, paragraph 2(a) of the France-Italy tax treaty. ... Focus instead on autonomy of decision-making (p. 261) Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that beneficial ownership — which can be a key issue in the context of the domestic antiavoidance rules as well as the antiabuse principle of article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — should be tested, considering the nature and the functions of the direct recipient of income concerning its ability to make autonomous decisions regarding and exercise power over the funds. Therefore, in this case, understanding beneficial ownership requires considering the significant lack of operations as part of the nature of a pure holding company rather than a detrimental indicator, as it would be in the context of an operating company. … [T]he Supreme Court held that the right to claim tax treaty relief should not be limited simply because a pure holding company is wholly owned by a sole shareholder based in another country…. ...

See also Suresh... 2002 SCC 1...wherein it is established that the standard of review for procedural issues is correctness.] ... See also Cogesco... 2013 FC 1238 at paras 18-20... and 3500722 Canada... 2008 FC 554....] the Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review on the basis that the court was unable to determine on the record whether the CRA considered certain facts that the court considered relevant: … In the early years of the administration of subsection 220(3.1), it was more common for the Federal Court to find a lack of independence within the CRA during the process of subsequent reviews. ... Limited nature of relief (p. 42:10-11) The Federal Court of Appeal in Slau confirmed that in allowing an application for judicial review, it is not open to the reviewing court to mandate an outcome where more than one is possible: … The limited remedy that a reviewing court can give in taxpayer relief cases is outlined by the Federal Court in Kapil: As a matter of law, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to order the Minister to waive taxes, penalties, and arrears interest. ...