Search - convention

As well, there was agreement on the fact that the appellant received the following amounts in 1996: ORGANIZATION NATURE OF AMOUNT AMOUNT Government of Canada pension $ 4,764.42 Régie des Rentes du Québec survivor's pension $ 6,345.24 Régie des Rentes du Québec pension $ 1,019.76 Hydro-Québec pension $22,379.00 Royal Bank interest $ 170.13 Royal Bank interest $ 3,503.36 [6] No source deductions were made when these amounts were paid to the appellant. [7] The assessment totalling $6,756.55 was made on the basis that the applicable rates and resulting tax were as follows, for the various amounts received: AMOUNT RATE TAX Interest $ 3,673.49 10% $ 367.35 Hydro-Québec pension $22,379.00 15% $3,356.85 Government of Canada pension and pensions from Régime des $12,129.42 25% $3,032.35 Rentes du Québec TOTAL $6,756.55 [8] The 10 percent rate on interest results from the effect of Article XI of the 1980 Tax Convention between Canada and the United States ("the Convention") as applicable from January 1, 1996. [9] The 15 percent rate on the pension received from Hydro-Québec results from the effect of paragraphs 2(a) and 3 of Article XVIII of the Convention, as applicable from January 1, 1996, according to the third Protocol to that agreement effective on November 9, 1995. [10] The 25 percent rate on benefits paid under social security legislation (Government of Canada and Régime des Rentes du Québec) results from the operation of s. 212(1)(h) of the Act, as applicable from January 1, 1996, and the exclusion set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article XVIII of the Convention, as amended by the third Protocol. [11] Counsel for the respondent admitted that the coming into effect of the fourth Protocol to the Convention on December 16, 1997 amended Article XVIII of the Convention so that benefits under social security legislation would only be taxed in the recipient's country of residence, not in the country in which the source of the benefits was located. ...

The assessment totalling $6,756.55 was made on the basis that the applicable rates and resulting tax were as follows, for the various amounts received: AMOUNT RATE TAX Interest $ 3,673.49 10% $ 367.35 Hydro-Québec pension $22,379.00 15% $3,356.85 Government of Canada pension and pensions from Régime des Rentes du Québec $12,129.42 25% $3,032.35 TOTAL $6,756.55 The 10 percent rate on interest results from the effect of Article XI of the 1980 Tax Convention between Canada and the United States (“the Convention”) as applicable from January 1, 1996. The 15 percent rate on the pension received from Hydro-Québec results from the effect of paragraphs 2(a) and 3 of Article XVIII of the Convention, as applicable from January 1, 1996, according to the third Protocol to that agreement effective on November 9, 1995. ... Counsel for the respondent admitted that the coming into effect of the fourth Protocol to the Convention on December 16, 1997 amended Article XVIII of the Convention so that benefits under social security legislation would only be taxed in the recipient’s country of residence, not in the coun- try in which the source of the benefits was located. ...

Where any greater relief from tax would have been afforded by any provision of the 1942 Convention than under this convention, any such provision shall continue to have effect for the first taxable year with respect to which the provisions of this Convention have effect under paragraph 2(b). ... The OECD also publishes Commentaries on provisions of the OECD Convention. ... The introduction to the Commentary stated that the Committee “considered that existing conventions should, as far as possible, be interpreted in the spirit of the revised Commentaries, even though the provisions of these conventions did not include the more precise wording of the 1977 Model Convention”. ...

Tax Convention (the "convention"), he is entitled to a complete exemption from taxation in Canada of his U.S. source pension income. ... The respondent further points out that attached to the convention is such an instrument referred to in paragraph 2(b), being the Technical Explanation of the the Canada—U.S. Convention (the “technical explanation”) of article XVIII of the convention together with an example. ...

They also were required to attend and participate in meetings, seminars, conventions, and promotional events in various locations, including in the United States. ... Nickerson is entitled to deduct: $3,729 for the bus hired to transport their team to a “major convention” in Ottawa; [7] $368.80 for attendance at a “major convention” in Massachusetts for which he was a speaker; [8] and $274.64 for a corn maze promotional event. [9] [22] The Respondent argues that some of the above convention expenses should not be allowed because subsection 20(10) of the Income Tax Act limits business expense claims to two conventions in a taxation year. While the Respondent relied on a compelling authority this regard, [10] I was not provided with evidence outlining the two conventions for which expenses had already been allowed for each taxation year. ...

Tax Convention then in effect. He pointed out that under section 3 of the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, the provisions of the convention and protocol between Canada and the United States must to prevail in the event of inconsistency between such provisions and those contained in the Income Tax Act. ... Tax Convention exempted the payment to Mr. Wood from the tax assessed. ... Convention cannot be reduced by reason of any amendment to the Income Tax Act made subsequent to the enactment of the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1943, and in particular section 3 thereof. ...

Analysis The Minister in assessing the appellant admitted that he was in business and allowed deductions (other than the trips under appeal) as follows: 1980- $19,629.78 1981- $27, 619.44 1982- $19,894.92 The only items denied were for travelling to the United States for meetings and conventions. ... The convention locations or the climatic conditions alone did not serve to disallow the deductions. ... As a Canadian taxpayer he must be restricted by the provisions of subsection 20(10) of the Income Tax Act which reads: (10) Convention expenses. ...

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. ...

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. ...