Search - convention

The RPD did not find credible the allegations of persecution in Honduras and found that the Applicants were able to regain their residency status in Honduras, and as such were excluded under Article 1E of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [Convention]. ... Exclusion on the basis of Article 1E of the Convention [20]   The Applicants first argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of their status in Honduras. ... Article 1E of the Convention and section 98 of the IRPA are meant to preclude “asylum shopping”, in situations where a person already enjoys protection from a third country (Zeng at para 1). ...

Income Tax Convention (1980) exempt her from taxation in Canada. [2] The Appellant is a citizen of Canada and moved to the United States, or at least physically went there, and rented an apartment in February 1996, where she was employed throughout the balance of the year. ... Article 15 of the Convention would exempt her from any taxation in the United States, but for the proviso in subparagraph 2(a). ... What fairness, and the Convention requires is that she have credit in assessing her to income tax in this country, for the taxes paid in the United States, and that, of course, she has. ...

He seeks disclosure of certain statistical information from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding collection assistance under paragraph 1 of Article XXVII relating to Article XXVI A of the Protocol amending the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America (the U.S.) with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Convention). ... The Convention and the amending Protocol were implemented respectively by the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, S.C. 1984, c. 20 and the Act to Amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, S.C. 1995, c. 34. ... The Convention provides for an arrangement for the collection of money from those not within the jurisdiction. ...

Revised Berne Convention, Schedule II of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.  ... Rome Copyright Convention, 1928, Schedule III of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.  ... Canada is also a party to this round of revisions, known as the Rome Copyright Convention, 1928.  ...

Tax Convention, also known as the Convention Between the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Canada for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains (the “Tax Convention”). [3] It will suffice for the purposes hereof to state that Article 23 of the Tax Convention sets out a dispute resolution mechanism known as MAP that allows Canadian competent authority officials to interact with UK competent authority officials to endeavour to resolve, by mutual agreement, issues of double taxation not in accordance with the Convention. ... The Material Facts [13] The parties appear to agree on the following material facts: (a) AR filed income tax returns as a resident of Canada for the 2000 to 2015 taxation years and was assessed accordingly; (b) On May 24, 2013, AR reported additional income earned outside of Canada under the Voluntary Disclosure Program (“VDP”) and was reassessed accordingly on January 22, 2015; (c) Following an audit of AR’s affairs, the Minister issued Notices of Reassessment dated September 7, 2017 relating to AR’s 2006 to 2010 and 2014 taxation years, the subject matter of his appeals before this Court; (d) On or about September 13, 2018, AR initiated a disclosure process with the UK tax authorities (“HMRC”) under the Worldwide Disclosure Facility and requested a Certificate of Residency; (e) HMRC issued a Certificate of Residency on April 25, 2019 certifying that AR was a resident of the UK from April 6, 2002 to April 5, 2015; (f) On March 8, 2021, AR was assessed by HMRC for the 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 taxation years; (g) AR filed the MAP request on January 22, 2022; (h) By letter dated June 30, 2022, the Minister informed AR that his MAP request was denied on the basis that he had not filed the request for assistance under Article 23 of the Convention within three years from the “first notification of the action resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention”; (i) AR filed the Application with the Federal Court on July 28, 2022. [14] It is AR’s position that he first became aware of the possibility of double taxation in the UK when he was assessed by HMRC on March 8, 2021. ... It adds that Canada has produced administrative guidelines that anticipate the interplay between the objection/tax appeal process and MAP, notably paragraphs 46-56 of Canada Revenue Agency “Guidance on Competent Authority Assistance Under Canada’s Tax Conventions”, dated June 1, 2021 (“CRA IC71-17R5”). ...

The applicants have applied for judicial review of those decisions. [2]                 It is argued for the applicants that the Tax Court Judge erred in concluding that, in the 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years, they were resident in Canada for purposes of the Income Tax Act, and were not residents of the United States for purposes of Article IV of the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, enacted pursuant to the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, S.C. 1984, c. 20, Schedule I. [3]                 Whether a person is resident in Canada is a question of fact: [1946] S.C.R. 209 "> Thomson v. ...

The Canada-US Tax Treaty has been approved by Parliament and has the force of law in Canada by the effect of the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, SC 1984, c 20 [Tax Convention Act]. ... The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as may be relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes to which this Convention applies insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to this Convention. 1. Les autorités compétentes des États contractants échangent les renseignements pertinents à l'application des dispositions de la présente Convention ou à celles de la législation interne des États contractants relatives aux impôts auxquels s'applique la présente Convention dans la mesure où l'imposition qu'elle prévoit n'est pas contraire à la présente Convention.   […]   […] [Emphasis added.]   ...

A new provision, taking up a judge's opinion in an old case and the Vienna Convention solution (article 3), sets as the distinguishing criterion the relative value of the work and the materials: such contracts are now a priori considered contracts of enterprise; they involve a sale when the work is "merely accessory" to the value of the materials. ... If it is only a simple question of proportion, an identical transaction in which the client obtains a manufactured item would be a contract of sale in one case but a contract of enterprise or for services in the other. [21] In force in Quebec by virtue of An Act respecting the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, R.S.Q., chapter C-67.01. [22] The explanatory note by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Secretariat on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods state the following: 9. ... In such a case, the ownership is transferred to the owner‑client by accession as parts of the construction or renovation of the immovable are done (CCQ, articles 954 to 964). [24] If this finding is wrong, it would mean that a transaction subject to the Vienna Convention would be a sale, but an identical transaction with a client in Quebec, for example, would not. ...

Overview [1]   This Judgment relates to an application for judicial review of a decision dated December 17, 2018, by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which allowed an application brought by the Respondent Minister under s 108(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for cessation of the Applicant’s status as a Convention refugee [the Decision]. ... Decision Under Review [7]   In considering the Minister’s application for cessation, the RPD noted that s 108(1)(a) of IRPA is modelled on Article 1C(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 UNTS 137 (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1953) and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 UNTS 267 (adopted 31 January 1967, entered into force 4 October 1967) [collectively, the Convention]. ... If the RPD’s reavailment and cessation decision is correct, is section 46(1)(c.1) of IRPA unconstitutional and inoperative because it results in the violation of the Applicant’s rights under sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a manner which cannot be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society, the violation of the Applicant’s rights under sections 1(a) and (b), and 2(a), (b), and (e), of the Bill of Rights, and is also contrary to Canada’s obligations as a signatory of the Convention? ...

The PUC of the shares of Univar Holdco Canada ULC was $302,436,000 and therefore the total of the PUC of the shares and the note held by the American parent of Univar Holdco Canada ULC was equal to the fair market value of the shares of Univar Canada. [6]                The amount of the note payable by the Canadian company to its American parent company and the PUC of the shares of the Canadian company held by the American company before and after the transactions were: Blank Before After Note Payable: $0 $589,262,400 PUC: $911,729 $302,436,000 Total: $911,729 $891,698,400 [7]                Prior to the transactions the amount that could be extracted by the American parent company without incurring Part XIII tax in Canada was $911,729 and after the transaction it was significantly more ($891,698,400). [8]                The parties to the transactions relied on Article XIII of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980) to exempt from taxation in Canada any capital gain arising as part of the transactions and on the exception contained in subsection 212.1(4) of the ITA to avoid the deemed dividend that would otherwise arise under subsection 212.1(1) of the ITA when the shares of Univar Canada were transferred by its American shareholder to Univar Holdco Canada ULC. ... For example, Article XIII of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980) provides an exemption from tax in Canada on any capital gain realized by a resident of the United States on a disposition of shares of a Canadian corporation provided that the value of the shares is not derived principally from real property situated in Canada. [15]            To avoid the withholding tax on dividends imposed under the ITA, residents of a country with which Canada has a tax convention that exempts capital gains from tax in Canada would prefer a capital gain rather than a dividend. ... Without section 212.1 of the ITA, a non-resident person could sell the shares of Targetco to another Canadian corporation (with which the vendor does not deal at arm’s length) for non-share consideration and realize a capital gain that would not be taxable in Canada as a result of an applicable tax convention. ...