Search - convention

  (3.4)  If this subsection applies because of subsection 40(3.3) to a disposition of a particular property,   (3.4)  Lorsque le présent paragraphe s’applique par l’effet du paragraphe (3.3) à la disposition d’un bien, les présomptions suivantes s’appliquent:   (a) the transferor’s loss, if any, from the disposition is deemed to be nil, and … a) la perte du cédant résultant de la disposition est réputée nulle; …   (3.5)  For the purposes of subsections 40(3.3) and 40(3.4),   (3.5)  Les présomptions suivantes s’appliquent dans le cadre des paragraphes (3.3) et (3.4):   (a) a right to acquire a property (other than a right, as security only, derived from a mortgage, hypothec, agreement for sale or similar obligation) is deemed to be a property that is identical to the property;   … (a) le droit d’acquérir un bien (sauf le droit servant de garantie seulement et découlant d’une hypothèque, d’une convention de vente ou d’un titre semblable) est réputé être un bien qui est identique au bien;   …   [10]          It is common ground among the parties that the " disposition  of a particular capital property" referred to in paragraph 40(3.3)(a) is the disposition of the Exchangeable Shares, that is, the result of the appellant asking Newbridge to retract the Exchangeable Shares. ... The only words limiting the scope of the phrase are the words in brackets immediately following the phrase:   (other than a right, as security only, derived from a mortgage, hypothec, agreement for sale or similar obligation) (sauf le droit servant de garantie seulement et découlant d’une hypothèque, d’une convention de vente ou d’un titre semblable)   [26]          Respondent's counsel referred to the comments of Professor Sullivan on the "implied exclusion" argument to support her submission. ...

Szymczyk submits that the Crown should be estopped from assessing contrary to the Authorization. [36]         His submission relies on two distinct branches of estoppel: estoppel by convention and estoppel by representation. It is sufficient for purposes of these reasons to refer to the brief description of the two branches provided in Ryan v Moore, 2005 SCC 38: 4                 Estoppel by convention operates where the parties have agreed that certain facts are deemed to be true and to form the basis of the transaction into which they are about to enter (G.H.L. ...

  [24]          It can be noted that the Income Tax Convention between Canada and Israel, based upon the OECD Model Income Tax Convention, includes residence tie‑breaker rules. ...

Toutefois, si cette influence découle d'un contrat de concession, d'une licence, d'un bail, d'un contrat de commercialisation, d'approvisionnement ou de gestion ou d'une convention semblable- la société et l'entité dominante n'ayant entre elles aucun lien de dépendance- dont l'objet principal consiste à déterminer les liens qui unissent la société et l'entité dominante en ce qui concerne la façon de mener une entreprise exploitée par la société, celle-ci n'est pas considérée comme contrôlée, directement ou indirectement, de quelque manière que ce soit, par l'entité dominante du seul fait qu'une telle convention existe.                                                                                                             ...

In 1998, he attended a convention in Denver, Colorado and also traveled to Chicago, Illinois for private lessons and paid the cost of these trips even though the experience and knowledge acquired pertained to his work as an organist at Young. ... He paid for his own trips to a convention and for private lessons even though the instruction related directly to the performance of his services to Young. ...

With regard to Perséphone Canonne's appeal (1999-683(IT)G):                 [TRANSLATION] (a)            the appellant is Jean Canonne's wife; (b)            during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the appellant and his wife invested part of their capital in the United States; (c)            they decided to use the American securities brokers Paine Webber for this purpose; (d)            a number of accounts were opened with Paine Webber, some in the appellant's name, some in her husband's name and others in the name of the appellant and her husband jointly; (e)            part of the capital invested by the appellant and her spouse produced interest income; (f)             part of the capital invested by the appellant and her spouse was used to purchase shares in the capital stock of various companies; (g)            dividends were paid to the appellant and her spouse on the shares so purchased; (h)            the income generated by the appellant's investments (both those held by the appellant alone and those held by the appellant jointly with her husband) was not reported to either the American or Canadian tax authorities; (i)             the Minister of National Revenue added to the appellant's income the income generated by the appellant's investments and not reported by her; (j)             with regard to the income generated by the investments in the names of the appellant and her husband jointly, one half of that income was added to the appellant's income; (k)            during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the appellant's investments earned her the following income (in U.S. dollars):                                                                 1992       1993                       1994                 Dividends                               $ 2,248    $ 2,451    $ 2,289                 Interest                   $27,308 $14,106 $38,823 (l)             the Minister of National Revenue converted into Canadian dollars the appellant's income earned in U.S. dollars, using the following conversion rates:                                                                    1992                       1993                       1994                 Conversion rate:    1.2083     1.2898     1.3569 (m)           for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue added to the appellant's income the following amounts as income from property (additional investment income):                                    1992                                       1993                                       1994                                 $23,628                    $21,355                    $56,153 (n)            in accordance with the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, a 15% withholding tax was withheld on most of the dividends, and the Minister of National Revenue accordingly granted the appellant a foreign tax credit for each taxation year:                                                                 1992                         1993                        1994                 Foreign tax credit:                                     $394                         $425                        $469 (o)            by not reporting all of her income, the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made a false statement or omission in her tax returns for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, which justifies the assessment of a penalty in the amount of $3,188 for 1992, $2,834 for 1993 and $7,450 for 1994 pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act. With regard to Jean Canonne's appeal (1999-684(IT)G):                 [TRANSLATION] (a)            the appellant is Perséphone Canonne's husband; (b)            during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the appellant and his wife invested part of their capital in the United States; (c)            they decided to use the American securities brokers Paine Webber for this purpose; (d)            a number of accounts were opened with Paine Webber, some in the appellant's name, some in his wife's name and others in the name of the appellant and his wife jointly; (e)            part of the capital invested by the appellant and his spouse produced interest income; (f)             part of the capital invested by the appellant and his spouse was used to purchase shares in the capital stock of various companies; (g)            dividends were paid to the appellant and his spouse on the shares so purchased; (h)            the income generated by the appellant's investments (both those held by the appellant alone and those held by the appellant jointly with his wife) was not reported to either the American or Canadian tax authorities; (i)             the Minister of National Revenue added to the appellant's income the income the income generated by the appellant's investments and not reported by him; (j)             with regard to the income generated by the investments in the names of the appellant and his wife jointly, one half of that income was added to the appellant's income; (k)            during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the appellant's investments earned him the following income (in U.S. dollars):                                                                 1992       1993       1994                 Dividends                               $ 1,260    $ 2,289    $ 3, 241                 Interest                   $18,401 $19, 269 $26,420 (l)             the Minister of National Revenue converted into Canadian dollars the appellant's income earned in U.S. dollars, using the following conversion rates:                                                                    1992                       1993                       1994                 Conversion rate:    1.2083     1.2898     1.3569 (m)           for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue added to the appellant's income the following amounts as income from property (additional investment income):                                 1992                                        1993                                        1994                                 $23,756                    $27,805                    $40,511 (n)            in accordance with the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, a 15% withholding tax was withheld on most of the dividends, and the Minister of National Revenue accordingly granted the appellant a foreign tax credit for each taxation year:                                                                 1992                         1993                        1994                 Foreign tax credit:                                     $216                         $389                        $662 (o)            by not reporting all of his income, the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made a false statement or omission in his tax returns for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, which justifies the assessment of a penalty in the amount of $4,340 for 1992, $4,357 for 1993 and $5,777 for 1994 pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act. [4]            The appellants both testified, substantially repeating the facts alleged in their respective Notices of Appeal. ...

IT Bulletin 357R, also makes note of the fact that the "convention expenses" are dealt with differently under subsection 20(10) of the Act, and that certain other considerations should be taken into account. I would add that my reading of subsection 20(10) of the Act indicates that the restrictions which IT Bulletin 357R places on “training expenses", which could fall under the category of “capital” do not apply to "convention expenses", because the limit under paragraph 18(1)(b) has been removed. ...

Neither of the Appellants withheld or paid to Revenue Canada, tax under Part XIII of the Act on the interest credited to Uhrenholt in their line of credit accounts in respect of the 70 per cent advances, the running balance of the line of credit accounts or the quarterly so-called "commissions" based on the maximum line of credit. [6]            Revenue Canada assessed the Appellants for 15 per cent withholding tax on these amounts being the reduced rate on interest applicable under the Canada-Denmark Income Tax Agreements and Conventions. ... Counsel referred to Article 3 of the Canada-Denmark Income Tax Agreements and Conventions which provided that the term "Denmark" means the Kingdom of Denmark, excluding the Faroe Islands and Greenland. [149]        He referred to the case of Gurd's Products Company Limited, supra, in support of his position that each case must turn upon its own facts. ... With regards to the question of whether or not the Appellants filed tax or paid any tax elsewhere, the Appellants referred to the Canada-Denmark Income Tax Agreements and Conventions. ...

Propensity Properties’ tax returns do show a $200,000 plus loan being made to a Golden Hospitality and Convention Corporation, not Mr.  ... The Propensity Properties financial statement shows its loan as owed to it by Golden Hospitality and Convention. ... There was Transcona Recreation Centre Ltd. and Golden Sports Recreation and Convention Services Ltd. ...

Applying broad principles and conventions of general application, Mr. ... This is surprising because in his first reference (Broad Principles and Conventions of General Application) he concludes at page 5 of his report that there is good authority under GAAP to capitalize the Replacement Costs. ... She states that additional broad principles and conventions should be considered like materiality, matching and representational faithfulness. ...