in-print-bilateral-benefits-0409-en

Thisinterpretationappearstodemonstratethatthecrasuppor

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: “in connection with” or “incidental to” are not defined in the protocol. at the 2008 iFa seminar, the Cra’s initial comments seemed to suggest that Canadian case law that interpreted the meaning of in connection with or incidental to income from an active business was relevant in considering the scope of 30 Treas. reg. 1.367(a)-2T(b)(3). 31 Dominion Taxicab Assn. v. MNR, 54 DTC 1020, at 1021 (sCC); and Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. MNR, 61 DTC 1300 (sCC). see also the discussion in Wilfrid Lefebvre, ian Macgregor, and Deen C. Olsen, “income Tax Litigation” (1995) vol. 43, no. 5 Canadian Tax Journal 1861-79, at 1873. i nternational tax planning n 99 this provision.32 such a response suggests a fairly narrow interpretation of these terms. However, the technical explanation does elaborate on the requirement that income from the source country must be derived in connection with or incidental to the trade or business carried on in the resident country. In Connection with an item of income is derived in connection with a trade or business if, for example, the income-producing activity in the source country...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/03/2013 for the course ACCOUNTING 346 taught by Professor William during the Fall '12 term at DeVry Chicago.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online