Search - convention

Income Tax Convention (1980) (hereinafter the "Treaty") he was a resident of the U.S. by virtue of the tie-breaker rule. ...   [29]     In Canada, section 3 of the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, R.S., 1985, c. I‑4, provides further direction in this regard:   Notwithstanding the provisions of a convention or the Act giving the convention the force of law in Canada, it is hereby declared that the law of Canada is that, to the extent that a term in the convention is   (a) not defined in the convention, (b) not fully defined in the convention, or (c) to be defined by reference to the laws of Canada,   that term has, except to the extent that the context otherwise requires, the meaning it has for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, as amended from time to time, and not the meaning it had for the purposes of the Income Tax Act on the date the convention was entered into or given the force of law in Canada if, after that date, its meaning for the purposes of the Income Tax Act has changed ...

Income Tax Convention, the tax on such income is either 10% or 15%. Because of that Tax Convention, the statutory rate of 25% in section 212 no longer applies. ... The Tax Convention reduces the rate to 10% or 15% and, as the Appellant's son acknowledged when he testified in this appeal, she does not dispute the amounts of tax or interest. ... Under the provisions of the Canada/US Tax Convention, a taxpayer may make an application to a "competent authority" to obtain relief from double taxation where it exists. ...

Income Tax Convention. At 1162 there is the following paragraph in the judgment: The term '‘permanent establishment” normally interpreted suggests something more substantial than a license, a letterhead and isolated activities. ... Income Tax Convention thereto, the Court hereby dismisses the appeals. ...

The relevant portions of the 1942 Tax Convention are as follows: Article I. ... Paragraph 3 of Article VII of the Convention is not intended to have any implications for interpretation of the 1942 Convention, but is intended to assure that under the Convention deductions are allowed by a Contracting State which are generally allowable by that State. ... The 1942 Convention used the term “industrial and commercial profits” while the 1980 Convention referred to "business profits.” ...

., significant discrepancies were noted between the amounts paid by the R.A.M.Q. and the professional income reported by the appellant, namely $22,189 in 1992, $27,543 in 1993 and $47,189 in 1994; (g) Since the appellant could not explain the discrepancies, the amounts referred to in subparagraph 7(g) were added to his income for the years at issue; (h) Amounts totalling $41,752 (1992), $36,172 (1993) and $26,795 (1994) were disallowed by the Minister as expenses for a variety of reasons, as set out below: 1992 1993 1994 Total Disallowed expenses Dues and donations $2,898 $2,450 $700 $6,048 Insurance $4,971 $4,836 $4,636 $14,443 Salaries and benefits $5,690 $1,398 $5,353 $12,441 Professional fees $3,799 $3,162 $1,561 $8,522 Automobile expenses $1,377 $1,926 $1,677 $4,980 Conventions and training $17,229    $18,942    $10,111 $46,282 Home office expenses $2,049 $2,110 $2,007 $6,166 Interest (carrying charges) $3,739 $1,348 $750 $5,837 TOTAL DISALLOWED EXPENSES    $41,752    $36,172    $26,795 $104,719 expenses claimed as professional fees were disallowed because they were personal expenses (e.g. funeral costs for the appellant's father, painting or music classes) and several amounts could not be justified by documents; expenses claimed as donations and dues were disallowed, including a loan to the Club de golf de Baie-Comeau and the appellant's professional dues for membership in the Federation of General Practitioners of Quebec, which were paid by the R.A.M.Q. and which the appellant had already claimed; payments of life insurance premiums were disallowed because they were personal expenses; under "salaries", the appellant had included the employee's portion of contributions to the Quebec Pension Plan, of unemployment insurance premiums, and of premiums for the Régime de l'assurance-maladie du Québec and taxes, and those amounts were disallowed; expenses claimed under "conventions and training" were disallowed because of a lack of vouchers or because they involved personal travel by or personal expenses of the appellant; the appellant had also claimed the non-eligible 20% of restaurant or entertainment expenses; amounts claimed for the use of the appellant's home were disallowed because his principal place of business was at the Médicentre Boréal; certain expenses for the use of an automobile were disallowed because the vouchers showed expenses for two different vehicles; amounts claimed for interest on a credit line were disallowed because they were inconsistent with his personal expenses; (i) Amounts of $25,020 (1992), $29,202 (1993) and $24,973 (1994) that the appellant had reported as rental losses on immovable property in St-Augustin-de-Desmaures were disallowed by the Minister because there was no reasonable expectation that a profit would be made from renting that single-family home during the years at issue; (j) Since purchasing that home in 1990, the appellant has claimed $127,819 in losses over a period of five years; (k) The annual rent collected for the house does not cover the mortgage interest; (l) The appellant indicated that he could not increase the rent because he would then not have been able to rent the house, which shows that the property was generating all the income it could; (m) Since the appellant has been preparing his own financial statements since the early 1980s, he ought to have known that, given their nature, he could not claim the expenses disallowed by the Minister for the years at issue; (n) The R.A.M.Q. reports were very clear and made it possible for the appellant to report his professional income appropriately during the years at issue; (o) Since the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made false statements in his income tax returns for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years by not reporting all his income and by claiming non-deductible expenses for each of the years at issue (see table), penalties of $6,589, $5,083 and $6,831, respectively, were assessed under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act: 1992 1993    1994 Expenses Professional fees $949 $3,162 $1,561 Dues and donations $1,668 $2,450 $700 Conventions and training $17,229 $18,942 $10,111 Total $19,846 $24,554 $12,372 Income R.A.M.Q. $29,047 $15,913 $39,114 Amount subject to penalty $48,893 $40,467 $51,486 [6] With regard to the assessment of penalties, counsel for the respondent drew a distinction between the income from the R.A.M.Q. that Mr. ... The most substantial item among the disallowed expenses that gave rise to penalties is conventions and training expenses, which total $46,282 for the three years. [8] In addition to being substantial, those expenses are totally bizarre: obviously, they could not be considered legitimate in computing professional income. ...

Appellants’ counsel drew the Court’s attention to the Canada-United States Income Convention Act, 1984, Chapter 20, S.C. 1984, subsection 3(2) which reads: (2) In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Act and the Convention shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. ... Article IV, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980) reads: 1. ... Due to these factors, it is useful to review the tests applicable under the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980), Article IV, subparagraph 2(a). ...

MTGL is a shareholder of MenuPalace. [4] He stated that because he was a thirty-three per cent shareholder of Dealfind and he contributed to its growth, he should get thirty per cent of the expenses. [5]              According to the appellant, he went to Las Vegas to attend the Yellow Pages Convention ("Convention"). ... However, in response to subsequent questions by counsel for the respondent, the appellant admitted that the Convention had ended on April 19, 2011, which was the day before he arrived. ... He subsequently admitted, however, that he had arrived in Las Vegas the day after the Convention ended and immediately before the Easter long weekend. ...

As a result, it appears that he was liable for taxes in the U.S. in 2000 and that he was a resident of the U.S. for the purposes of Article IV of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (the “Convention”) in 2000. ...   [14]          Since this home in Canada was a permanent home, the issue for the purposes of the Convention is whether or not the property was available to him. ... The issue for the purposes of the Convention is whether the property was available to him. ...

The appellant's second argument is that article XV of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, 1980 prohibits Canada from taxing any deemed benefit arising from the exercise by Dr. ... "Derived" in the sense of the Convention is then argued to mean "accruing", based on M.N.R. v. ... This falls within the ordinary meaning of section 7 of the Income Tax Act read within the context of the Act and the Convention. ...

Tax Convention (1980). The consideration of the affiliation fee is the sole issue in this appeal. ... Tax Convention provisions in which were different than at the time of this appeal. ... Tax Convention was set out in the notification of confirmation by the Minister in this action. ...