Search - 2005年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

The King, 2024 TCC 31-- summary under Paragraph 13(31)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 13- Subsection 13(31)- Paragraph 13(31)(a) s. 13(31)(a) deemed property acquisition by an LP did not accord it a corresponding deemed taxation year under the 2-year rolling start rule The taxpayer (Suncor) incurred $34 million in January 2005 to acquire Class 41 property, then on January 1, 2006 transferred the property on a s. 97(2) rollover basis to a limited partnership (the “LP”) of which it was the 99.9% general partner and whose first taxation year extended from February 1, 2005 to January 31, 2006 and second taxation year ended on January 31, 2007 (the “2007 taxation year”). S. 13(31)(a) deemed the LP to have acquired the property for purposes of s. 13(27)(b) at the time of its acquisition by Suncor, i.e., in January 2005. ... However, that is all it does …. There is nothing in the wording of subsection 13(31) that creates the fiction of the Limited Partnership having a year-end prior to February 1, 2005—specifically … a 12-month fictional taxation year that ended on January 31, 2005. ...

The King, 2024 TCC 31-- summary under Paragraph 13(27)(b) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 13- Subsection 13(27)- Paragraph 13(27)(b) transferee LP did not satisfy s. 13(27)(b) at the start of its 2nd tax year even though s. 13(31)(a) deemed it to acquire the property before its 1st tax year Suncor acquired a Class 41 property in January 2005, then on January 1, 2006 transferred it on a s. 97(2) rollover basis to a limited partnership (the “LP”) of which it was the 99.9% general partner and whose first taxation year extended from February 1, 2005 to January 31, 2006 and second taxation year ended on January 31, 2007 (the “2007 taxation year”). S. 13(31)(a) deemed the LP to have acquired the property for purposes of s. 13(27)(b) at the time of its acquisition by Suncor, i.e., in January 2005. ... However, that is all it does …. There is nothing in the wording of subsection 13(31) that creates the fiction of the Limited Partnership having a year-end prior to February 1, 2005 …. ...

Boyle J found that the evidence presented did not establish the existence of any sham transactions, nor any deceptive window dressing, stating (at para 78): The reassessed 2006 and 2007 transactions (involving NewAgco Barbados in its 2007 and 2008 fiscal years) are otherwise identical to the calendar 2005 year transactions which used NewAgco US, a related company that was not in a low tax jurisdiction. … There was no attempt to mislead or deceive others about the adopted structure, the participants involved or its purpose and objectives. …[A] Canadian entity could not be the seller of the US ClearOut to the Canadian farmers under the OUI program. … It was clearly NewAgco Barbados that purchased the ClearOut …[and] bore material risk in these transactions. … That two related parties would sit down at year end and ensure the service fee generated a reasonable profit above the service provider’s costs should not be surprising or of much concern. … The Services Agreement between AgraCity and NewAgco Barbados appears to be a valid contractual agreement setting out in very large measure what AgraCity was responsible for doing and what it in fact did, as well as how AgraCity was to be paid for performing those services. There is no requirement that such a contract or agreement be in writing. … [C]onfused books and records … are not, on their own, evidence of a sham unless their inaccuracies, inconsistencies and/or omissions can be shown to favor a particular, but clearly inaccurate, recording of the party’s rights, obligations, revenues etc. ...

These problems resulted in the taxpayer not receiving the revenues that he reported in his returns for 2005 to 2008. ... Hokhold … do not identify any particular debts owing. She has simply aggregated what she believes to have been the total receipts of the practice annually over a four year period and deducted that amount from the total revenue reported by the Appellant in order to compute the bad debt claim. … The word “debt” … has been judicially defined … as “a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand, recoverable by action”: Diewold v. ... …[T]here is simply no way of assessing the accuracy of the amount claimed in the absence of the business records from the Appellant’s practice. … Even if the Appellant had proved the existence of the debts, I would have been unable to conclude what part, if any, of those debts went bad in 2008. … Paragraph 20(1)(p) … only allows for a deduction in the year during which the debt goes bad. … ...

Also in March 2005, 9149 redeemed the Class A common shares for their PUC and ACB of $347,848 (so that no deemed divided or capital gain resulted) and redeemed approximately ¾ of the Class B preferred shares, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss of $196,506 to the taxpayers. Oka sold its real estate in December 2005, but with title issues not resolved until December 2006. ... At the end of 2008, 9149 redeemed the (¼) balance of the Class B preferred shares for $69,000, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss to the taxpayers of $69,000 and $73,112. ...

In finding that the Minister failed to discharge her onus to prove the correctness of the underlying reassessments for 2005 and 2006, she stated (at para. 28): Newgate’s documents were at one time within the custody and the control of the CRA. However … the CRA lost or destroyed the documents. In light of this evidence, it would be unfair to place the onus on the appellants. In finding that for the 2007 year, the onus was instead on the taxpayers, and before finding that they had failed to discharge this onus, she stated (at para. 29): The appellants had available to them Newgate’s 2007 income tax return, as well as that of its associated corporation …. ...

Also in March 2005, 9149 redeemed the Class A common shares for their PUC and ACB of $347,848 (so that no deemed divided or capital gain resulted) and redeemed approximately ¾ of the Class B preferred shares, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss of $196,506 to the taxpayers. Oka sold its real estate in December 2005, but with title issues not resolved until December 2006. ... At the end of 2008, 9149 redeemed the (¼) balance of the Class B preferred shares for $69,000, giving rise to a deemed dividend and capital loss to the taxpayers of $69,000 and $73,112. ...

In very general terms, significant elements of the series of transactions included: Grenon’s RRSP transferring its units of FMO to a newly-formed unit trust (“TOM” – which was found in Grenon not to qualify as a mutual fund trust) – in exchange for units of TOM representing close to 100% of the issued and outstanding TOM units. ... In finding that the appellants had not acquired the FMO units in step 2 above (which continued to be beneficially owned by the RRSP) and, therefore, did not realize a capital loss in step 6 above, Smith J stated (at paras. 174, 176): Since it was intended, as admitted by the Appellants, that the FMO units allegedly acquired from TOM on December 23, 2005 would be repurchased for cancellation on December 28, 2005 resulting in the alleged capital losses, I find as a fact that the Appellants had “absolutely no discretion”... as to the disposal of those units. ... All of these transactions were pre-ordained. … [I]t cannot be said that the Appellants enjoyed “the three key attributes of ownership, namely, risk, use and possession” …. ...

Before concluding that the waiver was valid, Bocock J found (consistently with Nguyen, 2005 TCC 697, at para. 33) that the taxpayer “was not unduly pressured, mislead or unduly influenced to the extent of nullifying his executed consent to the waiver” (para. 15). ... Radelet’s tax return. … [T]he CRA … reasonably granted the extension, but in exchange for a waiver relevant to the upcoming reassessment period. ... Bocock J also found (at para 29) that none of the medical reports suggested that the taxpayer lacked mental capacity, and (at para. 41): … One can reasonably and objectively conclude, given the relative ease, precision and detail exercised by Mr. ...

") – earned management fees and rental fees from W.L. In 2003, the taxpayer lent $3.5 million to an arm's length supplier of specially prepared boards ("Interact") secured by patents held by Interact's principal ("Cable"). Following the bankruptcy of Interact and Cable earlier in 2005, the trustee in bankruptcy for Cable assigned the beneficial ownership of the patents to the taxpayer, so that it was deemed under s. 79.1 (6) to have acquired them at a cost of $3.5 million plus $0.4 million of relevant legal costs. ... In finding that the patents satisfied Reg. 1102(1)(c), Rip J noted that the taxpayer had made the $3.5 million loan in order to assist a financially strapped supplier (Interact) to supply it with the wood sizes it wanted, and that it acquired the beneficial ownership in 2005 with the objective (which was not realized) of exploiting the patents in a future joint venture so that the taxpayer could derive licensing revenues from them. ...