Words and Phrases - "public"

a
85
b
44
c
75
d
50
e
38
f
31
g
18
h
14
i
72
j
2
k
2
l
32
m
54
n
25
o
38
p
79
q
3
r
76
s
88
t
46
u
15
v
9
w
22
y
2
“
1

Grenon v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 30

Summary Under
Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 4801 - Paragraph 4801(a) - Subparagraph 4801(a)(i) - Clause 4801(a)(i)(A)
distribution of units that included significant purchases by minors and by adults who did not pay for their own units, was unlawful

In order that the taxpayer’s RRSP could indirectly invest in operating businesses in which he and/or two business colleagues had a management...

The text of this content is paywalled except for the first five days of each month. Subscribe or log in for unrestricted access.

Words and Phrases
lawful distribution offering memorandum public
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 245 - Subsection 245(4) purported establishment of “alter ego” MFTs through which an RRSP could invest in operating businesses was an abuse engaging GAAR 605
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 204.2 - Subsection 204.2(1.1) alleged distribution from non-qualified investment was not an over-contribution 277
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Window Dressing window-dressing is a deception about intention 312
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 207.1 - Subsection 207.1(1) non-qualified investments not “included” in annuitant’s income because it was never assessed 346
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 152 - Subsection 152(4) CRA’s assessing listed taxable RRSPs in a T3GR global return was not of the taxpayer’s (also listed) RRSP /inappropriate reliance in legal opinion on certificate of fact was carelessness 441
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 207.2 - Subsection 207.2(3) CRA’s assessment of Pt. XI.1 shown on the T3GR for all RRSPs of one type did not start the normal reassessment period for the taxpayer’s RRSP since no tax shown for it 370
Tax Topics - Income Tax Regulations - Regulation 4900 - Subsection 4900(1) - Paragraph 4900(1)(d.2) distribution was not lawful because the issuer had not complied with the OM exemption, which was the exemption that it had chosen to rely on 291