Search - convention

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "resident of a Contracting State" means any person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management, place of incorporation or any other criterion of a similar nature, but in the case of an estate or trust, only to the extent that income, derived by such estate or trust is liable to tax in that State, either in its hands or in the hands of its beneficiaries. 2.              ...

This is also a relevant principle in respect of the next argument of the Respondent's counsel. [42]          Having accepted, as counsel for the Appellant argued, that there are absolutely no expenditures here that are even "blurry" as between business and personal- there are no entertainment expenses, there are no personal car usages, there are no convention and promotion expenses- and having conceded that every expense was directly applied to a business activity, Respondent's counsel simply argues that this is an ill-fated venture which the Minister of National Revenue cannot see other than giving rise to losses in perpetuity and that the public purse should not accept that. ...

The Appellant claims that this income is exempted from tax pursuant to section 87 of the Indian Act and subsection 81(1) of the Act which provides: 87(1)        Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislature of a province, but subject to section 83, the following property is exempt from taxation, namely, (a)            the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve lands or surrendered lands; and (b)            the personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve. 87(2)        No Indian or band is subject to taxation in respect of the ownership, occupation, possession or use of any property mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) or is otherwise subject to taxation in respect of any such property. 81(1)        There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, (a)            an amount that is declared to be exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament, other than an amount received or receivable by an individual that is exempt by virtue of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada; [11]          The sole issue before the Court is whether the Appellant is entitled to the claim exemption from income tax in respect of her employment income as "personal property situated on a reserve" within the meaning of paragraph 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act. [12]          In Williams v. ...

The definition of "eligible individual" in section 122.6 reads: "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time under the Immigration Act, or regulations made under that Act, to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant's female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in prescribed circumstances, and (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing. [5] Sections 6301 and 6302 of Part LXIII of the Regulations made under the Act read as follows in 1995: 6301. — (1) For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of that definition does not apply in the circumstances where (a) the female parent of the qualified dependant declares in writing to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the male parent, with whom she resides, is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants who reside with both parents; (b) the female parent is a qualified dependant of an eligible individual and each of them files a notice with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant; (c) there is more than one female parent of the qualified dependant who resides with the qualified dependant and each female parent files a notice with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the qualified dependant; or (d) more than one notice is filed with the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(1) of the Act in respect of the same qualified dependant who resides with each of the persons filing the notices where such persons live at different locations. (2) For greater certainty, a person who files a notice referred to in paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) includes a person who is not required under subsection 122.62(3) of the Act to file such a notice and a person for whom the requirement to file such a notice has been waived by the Minister of National Health and Welfare under subsection 122.62(5) of the Act. 6302. — For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition "eligible individual" in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant resides; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. [6] In 1998, the Department of National Revenue wrote to the appellant and stated: We are unable to confirm the Notice of Determination for the Child Tax Benefit as previously proposed in our letter February 2, 1998 as the sharing of the benefits is not legislation in the Income Tax Act. ...

Income Tax Convention the appropriate rate of tax is 15% for the years 1981 to 1984 (November 10, 1984) and 10% thereafter. ...

He left Somalia in 1989 at the age of 19 and came to Canada in 1990 as a convention refugee. ...

Whether there is a reasonable expectation that conditions will be met is a question that is determined on the facts of the particular situation. [36]         The CRA’s position has been reproduced in many academic articles, including one by André Paquette entitled " Clause d’ajustement basée sur la performance (Earn-out)” [performance-based adjustment clause], which he delivered at the 2006 convention of the A ssociation de planification fiscale et financière. ...

The Dictionnaire de Droit Québécois et Canadien, 4th edition, defines “représentant, (ante)” as “Personne qui accomplit un acte au nom, à la place et pour le compte d’une autre personne, le représenté, en vertu d’un pouvoir qui lui a été conféré par la loi, par une décision du tribunal ou par une convention”. ...

The hours were never really recorded, and the appellant occasionally had to work weekends, if the payer was out of town for doctors’ conferences or conventions. ...

No settlement offers were made. [3]   There were two issues in the appeal: (a) Whether a capital gain was realized by the Appellant as a result of the sale of the shares taxable in Canada, in view of Article 13(4) of the Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Convention 1999 (the “Treaty”); and (b) Whether the general anti-avoidance rule (the “GAAR”) applied to override the application of the Treaty. [4]   The Appellant was wholly successful in the appeal and was awarded costs. ...