Why a business owner who paid himself dividends got into trouble with the CRA

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Section 160, also known as the “joint liability rule,” gives the CRA the power to hold an individual liable for the tax debts of someone with whom they have a non-arm’s length relationship if they’ve been involved in a transaction seen to avoid tax.

Four criteria must be met for the CRA to successfully win a joint-liability assessment: there must have been a transfer of property; the transferor and the transferee must not have been dealing at arm’s length; there must not have been adequate consideration paid by the transferee to the transferor; and the transferor must have had an outstandingThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Three of the four section 160 criteria listed above were clearly met, but the taxpayer and the CRA disagreed as to whether or not the taxpayer provided consideration for the property transferred to him by the corporation and, if so, whether the fair market value of that consideration exceeded the fair market value of the property transferred to him.Article content

financialpost You want us to feel bad for rich people who lose some money that won’t have any effect on their quality of life?

مصر أحدث الأخبار, مصر عناوين

Similar News:يمكنك أيضًا قراءة قصص إخبارية مشابهة لهذه التي قمنا بجمعها من مصادر إخبارية أخرى.

Why a business owner who paid himself dividends got into trouble with the CRAThe Canada Revenue Agency doesn\u0027t consider a dividend a legal remuneration, which can have severe implications. Jamie Golombek explains.
مصدر: VancouverSun - 🏆 49. / 61 اقرأ أكثر »

Why a business owner who paid himself dividends got into trouble with the CRAThe Canada Revenue Agency doesn\u0027t consider a dividend a legal remuneration, which can have severe implications. Jamie Golombek explains.
مصدر: OttawaCitizen - 🏆 21. / 68 اقرأ أكثر »