Search - convention

That is, it was not an amount exempt from taxable income in Canada because of a tax convention. ... R., [1999] 2 C.T.C. 2671 this Court came to the same conclusion as the Tingley case, namely that paragraph 5 of Article XVIII of the Convention applies only to benefits paid under social security legislation of the United States and not to private pensions. ... Other cases involving Article XVIII of the Convention have followed the logic that pensions fall under the rules established at paragraphs 1 through 3 of said Article XVIII. ...

In regards to the other out of Canada trips, they are different in nature and should be considered as convention expenses under section 20. ... If the conventions had been held in Regina, they still would have been classified as conventions. ... Under the circumstances of this case, the Court does not feel that the convention expenses for 1985 and 1986 are reasonable, and are therefore disallowed to the extent that they have already been disallowed. ...

There is no question that if it were not for the Canada-US Tax Convention the guarantee fees here in issue would, by virtue of paragraph 214(15)(a) of the Income Tax Act, be subject to tax. It is also beyond doubt that if it were not for that section guarantee fees would fall within the term “industrial and commercial profits’’ exempted from Canadian tax by virtue of Article I of the Convention. ... In saying that, we expressly refrain from any finding that a “deeming” provision in the domestic tax law might not, in other circumstances, be embraced by the provisions of international conventions. ...

Model Double Taxation Convention on Income and on Capital—Article 3(1)): Resident. 1. ... It is apparent that if the qualifying clause, supra, had been included in the Convention in issue, Norsk could not possibly be considered a resident for the purposes of this Convention. ... Given the purpose of the Convention, does the decision of the learned trial judge amount to an amendment to the Convention? ...

Appellant refers to Article I of the Convention and paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) of section 3 of the Protocol, which read as follows: Convention ARTICLE I An enterprise of one of the contracting States is not subject to taxation by the other contracting State in respect of its industrial and commercial profits except in respect of such profits allocable in accordance with the Articles of this Convention to its permanent establishment in the latter State. ... In his submission the Convention means that an individual may have only one enterprise, and his enterprise must be regarded as being of the State of which he is a resident. ... This presupposes that Article I of the Convention is applicable, and in view of the opinion I have just expressed on the subject, I could ignore it. ...

Isaack Shiek Magoya (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”), confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) that he is excluded from refugee protection by operation of Article 1 F (b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, [1969] Can TS no 6 (the “Convention”). [2]   Article 1 F (b) is a schedule to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”) and is incorporated by reference. That Article provides as follows: F The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: F Les dispositions de cette Convention ne seront pas applicables aux personnes dont on aura des raisons sérieuses de penser: (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; b) Qu’elles ont commis un crime grave de droit commun en dehors du pays d’accueil avant d’y être admises comme réfugiés; [3]   The Applicant is a citizen of Somalia. ... The RPD considered the Applicant to be excluded from refugee protection in Canada on the basis of Article 1 F (b) of the Convention. [5]   Upon appeal to the RAD, the Applicant requested an oral hearing. ...

Article II(2) of the Convention provides that undefined terms in the Convention shall take the meaning which they have in the laws in force in the contracting countries. ... Article II (2) In the application of the provisions of this Convention by one of the contracting States any term not otherwise defined in this Convention shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning which it has under the laws in force in the territory of that State relating to the taxes which are the subject of this Convention. ... Paragraph 214(15)(a) of the Income Tax Act deeming them to be interest is inconsistent with the Convention and, by virtue of section 3 of the Act that makes the Convention part of Canada’s domestic law, paragraph 214(15)(a) cannot apply to guarantee fees subject to the Convention. ...

Article I of the Convention must be read with subparagraphs 3(b) and (c) of the Protocol: Canada-US Reciprocal Tax Convention Art I [Industrial and commercial profits.] ... The second argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is based on article VIII of the Convention. ... The appellants’ third argument is that, in any event, under paragraph 1 of article XI of the Convention, the rate of tax could not exceed 15%. ...

Point at issue [2] According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether as a non-resident the appellant should pay taxes of $3,473.69, $3,386.03, $3,055.91, $3,154.57 and $4,212 respectively for the 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years pursuant to s. 212(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act") and articles XI and XVIII of the Tax Convention between Canada and the United States (hereinafter "the Convention"). [3] According to the respondent, the appellant lived in the United States of America throughout all those years. ... No 15 percent deduction has been made since 1984 from the amounts received as provided for in the Convention. ... At this point no taxes had to be paid on pensions and interest from Canada under the Convention between Canada and the U.S. ...

Point at issue According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether as a non-resident the appellant should pay taxes of $3,473.69, $3,386.03, $3,055.91, $3,154.57 and $4,212 respectively for the 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years pursuant to s. 212(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and articles XI and XVIII of the Tax Convention between Canada and the United States (hereinafter “the Convention”). ... No 15 percent deduction has been made since 1984 from the amounts received as provided for in the Convention. ... At this point no taxes had to be paid on pensions and interest from Canada under the Convention between Canada and the U.S. ...