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

France Dernières Nouvelles, France Actualités

Similar News:Vous pouvez également lire des articles d'actualité similaires à celui-ci que nous avons collectés auprès d'autres sources d'information.

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.
La source: VancouverSun - 🏆 49. / 61 Lire la suite »

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.
La source: OttawaCitizen - 🏆 21. / 68 Lire la suite »