Search - convention

  [1]                The Tax Court of Canada (Tax Court) was called upon to decide pursuant to the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980) (Convention) whether the appellant was required to pay in Canada income tax on his business income. ...   [2]                Article IV(2) of the Convention sets out five tie-breaker rules to assist in determining the jurisdiction in which the income tax is to be paid. ...   [4]                The Tax Court found that the appellant did not have an “habitual abode” in the United States for the purposes of the Convention: see paragraph 30 of the reasons for judgment. ...

In reference to the discrepancy on conventions, Mr. Ankrah abandoned his claim to all but two conventions in order to conform with subsection 20(10). ... Ankrah limited his claim for conventions to two in accordance with subsection 20(10). However, in claiming business mileage of 62,000 kilometers, it appears that a portion of this mileage related to travel to conventions. ...

The Convention provided that such fees would not be subject to tax in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Convention prevailed over the Income Tax Act, and its amendments and that, therefore, the Convention prevented the application of those amendments to the guarantee fees. ... The Convention and its legislation could stand on their own without the incorporation of previous tax legislation. ...

T.S.  1984 No. 15, as implemented by the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, S.C. 1984, c. 20 ... The Canada-United States Tax Convention [4]                In order to put this matter into context, it is necessary to first have some understanding of the Canada-United States Tax Convention [the Treaty]. ... They may also consult together for the elimination of double taxation in cases not provided for in the Convention.   4. ...

In filing his income tax returns for those years, the appellant claimed deductions pursuant to subparagraph 110(1)(f)(i) of the Act for amounts exempt from income tax in Canada because of a provision contained in a tax convention, namely Article 4 of the Canada-Egypt Income Tax Convention ("Convention"). ... Accordingly, the appellant submits that, pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention, he was taxable only in Egypt during the period he was residing there. ... Under paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Convention, since he had a permanent home available to him in both states, he shall be deemed to have been a resident of the state with which his personal and economic relations (centre of vital interests) were closer during the relevant period. [37]     The OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital has received worldwide recognition as a basic reference document in the application and interpretation of tax conventions (see The Queen v. ...

But as the trustees are residents of the United States the question arises as to whether they are protected by Article XIIIA of the Canada-United States Tax Convention. ... The learned trial judge, following the reasoning of Jackett, CJ in this Court in MNR v Bessemer Trust Company, [1972] FC 1398; [1973] CTC 12; 73 DTC 5045, held that the amount in question had the character of rentals within the meaning of the Convention and that in the absence of an election by the respondents to pay tax under Part I, the effect of Article XIIIA was to protect them from liability for tax on the amount. ... As rentals are the only income produced by the property, it seems to me that to require that on disposition of the property a portion of the proceeds of disposition representing the amount or part of the amount formerly allowed as a deduction in computing rental income be brought into income and subjected to tax, is part of the tax treatment of the rental income within the meaning of Article XI11 A(2) of the Convention and that such treatment is less favourable than that accorded under Section 99 (later section 110 and now section 216) of the Income Tax Act as in effect when Article XIIIA went into effect. ...

The applicant argues that his case is different than the others because of paragraph 7 of Article XVIII, an amendment to the Tax Convention between the U.S. and Canada which reads: A natural person who is a citizen or resident of a Contracting State and a beneficiary of a trust, company, organization or other arrangement that is a resident of the other Contracting State, generally exempt from income taxation in that other State and operated exclusively to provide pension, retirement or employee benefits may elect to defer taxation in the first-mentioned State, under rules established by the competent authority of that State, with respect to any income accrued in the plan but not distributed by the plan, until such time as and to the extent that a distribution is made from the plan or any plan substituted therefor. ... In any event, the Convention allows deferral of income to be only "under rules established by the competent authority of that State", which rules have not been complied with in this case, as the plan has not been registered by the Minister. Finally, the new provision of the Convention did not come into force in 1995. ...

  [5]               The Appellant considers subsection 118(5) of the Act to be discriminatory and penalizing and should be amended because it infringes on the convention on the rights of the child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly ...   [7]               With respect to the reference to the convention on the rights of the child, it must be mentioned that legally, this convention is not directly applied in Canada.  ...

He stated that the purpose of the visit was to attend at a convention of Mutual Life Assurance Company and that he took his wife with him. ... It was only under pressure by counsel for the respondent that the initial impression given by the appellant with respect to his attendance at a convention in Winnipeg in 1974 was not merely to attend a convention of his company, but was rather a pleasure trip. ...

The exemption was claimed under an article in the Canada- United States of America Tax Convention, which has the force of law by virtue of chapter 21 of the Statutes of Canada, 1943-44, and chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada 1950. The article is Article VIHA of the Tax Convention as amended and reads as follows:* [1] A professor or teacher who is a resident of one of the contracting States and who temporarily visits the other contracting State for the purpose of teaching, for a period not exceeding two years, at a university, college, school or other educational institution in such other State, shall be exempted by such other State from tax on his remuneration for such teaching for such period. ... If that be so, it is difficult to envisage what tax relief is accorded by Article VIIIA in the case of professors and teachers that would not otherwise be available in the case of all taxpayers by virtue of the foreign tax credit provisions which are, it is believed, also contemplated by the Tax Convention in question. ...