Search - consideration

If Holdco transfers the policy to its shareholder as a dividend in kind, its proceeds of disposition (and his cost) will be only the CSV of $240K, since the FMV of the consideration received by it is nil (so that its gain is $40K)- whereas its proceeds of disposition would have been $450K if Holdco instead had paid a $450K dividend to its shareholder, and he had purchased the policy for $450K. ...

Summaries of Brian Kearl and Carl Deeprose, Leaving Canada's New High Tax Rate Regime: Considerations, Tips and Traps, 2016 CTF Annual Conference draft paper under s. 250(1)(a), s. 2(1), Treaties, Art. 4, s. 128.1(1)(d), Treaties – Art. 18 and s. 210(1) – designated income – s. ...

If Holdco transfers the policy to its shareholder as a dividend in kind, its proceeds of disposition (and his cost) will be only the ACB of $50K, since the FMV of the consideration received by it is nil. ...

Article 13 of the India-Denmark Treaty permitted India to impose tax of 20% on the gross amount of fees for technical services (essentially defined, somewhat similarly to Art. 12(4) of the India-Canada Treaty, as “consideration for the services of technical or other personnel”), and Article 9 provided for a reduced rate of Indian tax on “profits derived from the operation of ships in international traffic.” ...

Southcott J directed CRA to reconsider the taxpayer’s request on the basis that it was inappropriate for CRA to rigidly follow those guidelines, rather than also taking other relevant considerations into account including the policy in favour of letting a taxpayer pay off tax debts and the taxpayer’s allegation that CRA’s refusal could render him bankrupt. ...

After it had been assessed for withholding tax as a result of transferring its shares of the company to a related company for consideration consisting mostly of a promissory note, it applied for relief pursuant to s. 229 of the B.C. ...

There will be significant consideration to including those treaties where there would be a match prior to ratification. ...

CRA stated: [S]ection 232 does appear to offer a solution where the consideration is reduced. ...

Campbell J set aside this decision on the basis that this did not constitute “a clear and supportable justification to deny the Applicant’s re-appropriation request given the large sum of money under consideration” and it constituted “the delivery of a punishment to the Applicant for perceived failure to meet the [Minister’s] Delegate’s unclear expectations.” ...

Respecting where two unrelated individuals each held exactly 50% of the (voting common) shares of the employer, CRA noted that under Duha, “the determination of whether a person exercises de jure control … must also take into consideration whether any specific or unique limitation on a shareholder’s power to control the election of the board or the board’s power to manage the business and affairs of the company, is manifested in either the constating documents of the corporation, or any unanimous shareholder agreement” (USA), so that either individual could have de jure control and be related to the employer under s. 251(2)(b)(i). ...