Search - convention

Having gone this far, the respondent submitted that the appellant is taxable unless he is exempt by the Canada-US Income Tax Convention. ... The appellant’s submission was that, if there was a conflict between the Act and the Convention, the Convention would prevail. Therefore, if the Convention exempts the sum in dispute herein from tax, then the appellant would pay no tax. ...

Minister of National Revenue, [1975] C.T.C. 2116, 75 D.T.C. 74 The Assistant Chairman: 1 This is the appeal of Dr Emile S Shihadeh from an income tax assessment wherein a tax in the amount of $3,362.70 was levied against the appellant in the 1969 taxation year. 2 The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant qualifies for the exemption from taxation provided for in Article VIIIA of the Canada-US Tax Convention. 3 In 1967 the appellant, who was a resident of the City of Ithaca, in the State of New York, USA, applied to several universities in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada for a teaching contract. ... The first one is an inquiry, dated February 19, 1968, from the appellant to the Taxation Division of the Department of National Revenue concerning his application for the tax exemption provided for in Article VIIIA of the said Reciprocal Tax Convention. ... In my opinion, it is not the purpose of the legislation to grant a tax holiday for those persons who intend to teach in Canada on a permanent basis, and the distinction to be made between remaining in Canada beyond the two-year period and continuing to teach in Canada beyond that period is necessary for the proper application of the purpose and intent of Article VIIIA of the Tax Convention. 19 I do not believe that the intention that a person may have had at the time of accepting his two-year teaching contract has any bearing or any effect on the mandatory disqualification from tax exemption provided for in Article VIIIA of the Tax Convention if the individual concerned continues to teach at a university in Canada after the expiration of the two-year teaching limit specified in the Tax Convention. 20 For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. ...

He concedes as well that the Tax Court judge was bound to apply the tie breaker rules found at paragraph 4(2) of the Convention. ... Ct), but he used the same term elsewhere in his reasons in a context where it could only mean "resident of Canada for the purposes of the Convention." ... Bujnowski's dual residency in the 2001 tax year and that he applied the tie-breaker rule found at para. 4(2) of the Convention, as he ought to have. ...

However, under the Convention referred to later in these reasons it is not to exceed 15% in situations to which the Convention applies. ... With respect to payments to residents of the United States, however, the provisions of the Income Tax Act are, and have been since 1944, subject to the provisions of the Canada-US Reciprocal Tax Convention and Protocol thereto signed in March 1942.* [2] Articles I and Il of the Convention provide: ARTICLE I An enterprise of one of the contracting States is not subject to taxation by the other contracting State in respect of its industrial and commercial profits except in respect of such profits allocable in accordance with the Articles of this Convention to its permanent establishment in the latter State. ... The Trial Division also held that the amounts did not fall within the meaning of “rentals and royalties” as defined in the Protocol to the Convention and were exempt under its provisions. ...

What the appellant's R&D employees attended was a conference, not a convention. ... At page 367 (D.T.C. 6308) he said: The word “convention” is not defined in the Act. ... In my view these gatherings could be categorized best, under the Income Tax Act, as conventions. ...

The appellant relies upon Article XVIII of the Canada-Belgium [Income] Tax Convention, which reads: Article X VIII Pensions and Annuities 1. ... The convention was signed in the English, French and Netherlands languages, each being equally authentic. Subsections 5(1) and (2) of the Canada-Belgium Income Tax Convention Act, 1976 provided: (1) The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of Belgium, set out in Schedule II, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force. (2) INCONSISTENT LAWS — In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Part, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Part and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. ...

These words are defined neither in the Model Convention nor in the Tax Treaty. ...   [39]     In 1999 Article 3(2) of the Model Convention, was amended as follows: 2.   ... Expert Evidence   [41]     The appellant produced several expert witnesses to explain Dutch law and the development of the OECD Model Conventions and the Commentaries on the Model Conventions.   ...

Convention does not remove the benefit sought from section 245. It is the Act, not the Convention, that imposes the tax. ... Convention restricts the operation of section 245. Canada is a party to a large number of income tax conventions- over 50, and more are being negotiated. ... Convention. Accordingly the Convention must prevail and the sale must be treated as giving rise to a capital gain which, under Article XIII of the Convention, is taxable only in the United States. ...

Did the RPD err in law in the application of 1F (b) and 1F(c) of the Convention?   ... A person referred to in section E and F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.   98.  La personne visée aux sections E ou F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés ne peut avoir la qualité de réfugié ni de personne à protéger ...

Les rentes provenant d’un État contractant et payées à un résident de l’autre État contractant sont imposables dans l’État d’où elles proviennent. [4] The convention was signed in the English, French and Netherlands languages, each being equally authentic. [5] Subsections 5(1) and (2) of the Canada-Belgium Income Tax Convention Act, 1976 provided: (1) The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of Belgium, set out in Schedule II, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force. (2) INCONSISTENT LAWS — In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Part, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Part and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. [6] It is interesting to note, parenthetically, that paragraph 110(1)(f) permits, in computing taxable income, a deduction for: (f) — any social assistance payment made on the basis of a means, needs or income test and included because of clause 56(1)(a)(i)(A) or paragraph 56(1)(u) in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year or any amount that is (i) an amount exempt from income tax in Canada because of a provision contained in a tax convention or agreement with another country that has the force of law in Canada. [7] The section obviously has no application. ... Except when an international convention provides otherwise, every employee, of whatever nationality, who works in Belgium and whose employer either has its seat in Belgium or has a plant or office there to which the employee is attached, is subject to the Belgian social security system. This territoriality principle, whose strict application often resulted in double payments being due, has been attenuated by international bilateral or multilateral conventions. ...