genew

my experience, and look at the notes in this section.

Post by John_molson2003;3039533
Hi Genew:

Thank you for your comments!. In the previsous post, you said ITA69(1) only applies to transafer of property and doesn't apply to supplying service between related parties. Is this your personal opinion, previous experience in similar cases dealing with CRA or Revenue Quebec, or you have other backup to support your point? For me, I am just worried about the word "Everything" in ITA69(1), as "Everying" can be explained as intangible things like services.

Ciao

[/QUOTE]

genew

I personally believe this is a very practical question.  I suggest you find a practical solution (for example, a lease contract good for both sides) instead of struggling with the non-arm`s length transaction.

Post by John_molson2003;3039533
Hi Genew:

Thank you for your comments!. In the previsous post, you said ITA69(1) only applies to transafer of property and doesn't apply to supplying service between related parties. Is this your personal opinion, previous experience in similar cases dealing with CRA or Revenue Quebec, or you have other backup to support your point? For me, I am just worried about the word "Everything" in ITA69(1), as "Everying" can be explained as intangible things like services.

Ciao

[/QUOTE]

mmttll

恩,有意思,长知识.不过成立公司后,啥时候分红这个可以manipulate, 所以讲也有节税的效果吧.

John_molson2003

Hi Genew,

Sorry for not responding your post last night, as I left my laptop in the company, and I coldd not access Canadian Income Tax Act in my laptop. However, after I checked the Income Tax Act this morning in Section 69(1), I couldn't find the notes your mentioned in the previous post. I use the electronic file: folio view Canadian Income Tax Act downloaded from the Order des compatables agrees du Quebec. I compared it with the content in the link I posted in previous post, they are almost the same. Sorry for my blind, could you indicate more precisely which note you were talking about or can you copy and post the notes you found in the Section 69(1) to the forum?

Sorry for my stubborn, the goal for me is to clear any doubtness and uncertainty about an taxation issue, not necessary aim to the individual case. Thank you again for your suggestion! If both sides have to contract in good faith, there is no way for my friend to avoid to adding the six month rental revenue to his personal income. He has his own G&Q number, and for the first six months, the G&Q applied to the rent have already been remitted to Revenue Quebec. Thus technically, Revenue Quebec knows how much rent for a half year period. If he didn't remit the G&Q for the second six months period, I am afraid Revenue Quebec will conduct an audit to my friend, unless he is free to decide whether he can charge or forgive the rental under Income Tax Act.

Hope to receive your post soon!

Ciao.

To mmttll:

当做生意时，要不要成立公司是一个很有趣的问题，也是注会考试常考的问题。你已经有自己的一些心得，我就不详细阐述了。

Post by genew;3039547
my experience, and look at the notes in this section.   

[/QUOTE]

协作会计

我同意你的观点，合同是更重要的。市场价本身就是弹性的评估。

而且你朋友的小店不挣钱也是见仁见智的，所以还是谨慎处理为好。

Post by genew;3039551
I personally believe this is a very practical question. I suggest you find a practical solution (for example, a lease contract good for both sides) instead of struggling with the non-arm`s length transaction.  

[/QUOTE]

genew

This is not "stubborn" at all, but the way to deal with the laws :wink:.
The notes is on page 361.  However, it is just a note.  I agree with you - "anything" can be anything and is not defined in the act.
The fact is that your friend hada historical records with the tax authorities, had the GST/PST accounts registered, and this is indead a "commercial property" at the fist place.  You are right, you will have to take all these into consideration before taking any actions.
Hope I find a attached CRA ruling may help you.

Post by John_molson2003;3039718
Hi Genew,

Sorry for not responding your post last night, as I left my laptop in the company, and I coldd not access Canadian Income Tax Act in my laptop. However, after I checked the Income Tax Act this morning in Section 69(1), I couldn't find the notes your mentioned in the previous post. I use the electronic file: folio view Canadian Income Tax Act downloaded from the Order des compatables agrees du Quebec. I compared it with the content in the link I posted in previous post, they are almost the same. Sorry for my blind, could you indicate more precisely which note you were talking about or can you copy and post the notes you found in the Section 69(1) to the forum?

Sorry for my stubborn, the goal for me is to clear any doubtness and uncertainty about an taxation issue, not necessary aim to the individual case. Thank you again for your suggestion! If both sides have to contract in good faith, there is no way for my friend to avoid to adding the six month rental revenue to his personal income. He has his own G&Q number, and for the first six months, the G&Q applied to the rent have already been remitted to Revenue Quebec. Thus technically, Revenue Quebec knows how much rent for a half year period. If he didn't remit the G&Q for the second six months period, I am afraid Revenue Quebec will conduct an audit to my friend, unless he is free to decide whether he can charge or forgive the rental under Income Tax Act.

Hope to receive your post soon!

Ciao.

To mmttll:

当做生意时，要不要成立公司是一个很有趣的问题，也是注会考试常考的问题。你已经有自己的一些心得，我就不详细阐述了。

[/QUOTE]

John_molson2003

I guess that I found a real taxation gurus in the forum. I can only say that you are really a genius. Now I know the ITA69(1) won't apply to the situation when a shareholder lease his or her property to his or her company. Thank you so much! Now we can close the discussion, as you give a perfect touchdown. Thank all the participants. This my favorite song, and I present it to all of your guys. Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri7-vnrJD3k

Post by genew;3040139
This is not "stubborn" at all, but the way to deal with the laws :wink:.
The notes is on page 361. However, it is just a note. I agree with you - "anything" can be anything and is not defined in the act.
The fact is that your friend hada historical records with the tax authorities, had the GST/PST accounts registered, and this is indead a "commercial property" at the fist place. You are right, you will have to take all these into consideration before taking any actions.
Hope I find a attached CRA ruling may help you.

[/QUOTE]