| |
|
ALLOWS..............................3
|
| This determination is significant because it allows one to compare the status of a beneficiary of a | 122 |
| judicial interpretation which allows for the implementation of this legislative intent. | 1164 |
| appointment as one that allows the holder of the power to appoint to the decedent, his estate, | 1378 |
| |
|
ALTER...............................2
|
| creating a discretionary trust. As such, we will alter the example for the Québec context. | 490 |
| or her spouse, a spousal trust, an alter ego trust or a joint spousal trust. New subsection | 1290 |
| |
|
ALTERNATIVE.........................3
|
| expression does not result in a change in beneficial ownership. An alternative approach might | 1356 |
| the transfer. A viable alternative to the no change in beneficial ownership concept in | 1412 |
| alternative language could be employed if there is any doubt as to its application in that context. | 1556 |
| |
|
ALTERNATIVELY.......................4
|
| Alternatively , if there is any doubt or inconsistency as to what constitutes a general power of | 1374 |
| alternatively , too much tax may be assessed as the trust and the settlor may have different | 1466 |
| Alternatively , instead of repeating the requirement established by subparagraph (.)(b)(ii) | 1598 |
| Alternatively , subsection () could be amended to provide that property is surrendered | 1628 |
| |
|
AMBIGUITY...........................1
|
| words into the Act in order to cure an ambiguity , but rather to introduce a new section to | 692 |
| |
|
AMBIGUOUS...........................1
|
| In addition, as illustrated earlier, the wording of subparagraph ()(f)(iii) leaves ambiguous | 1094 |
| |
|
AMBIT...............................7
|
| ambit of this provision. As such, subsection () removes the first analytical hurdle, namely, | 248 |
| beneficially owned by the person. Arguably, the settlor of a self-benefit trust is within the ambit | 356 |
| applies, the discretionary beneficiaries would be within its ambit , would be deemed | 506 |
| version does not govern, the discretionary beneficiaries may be excluded from its ambit , with the | 516 |
| subparagraph ()(f)(iii). If they are within the ambit of subparagraph ()(f)(iii), Xs | 938 |
| the types of beneficiaries that are intended to be within its ambit . The nature of the right that a | 1094 |
| ()(a). In the authors view, the ambit of subsection () is so far reaching that the | 1520 |
| |
|
AMENDED.............................11
|
| provinces will illustrate that the ITA need be amended to ensure or promote consistent | 106 |
| It was amended in the Technical Bill to provide the following: | 1296 |
| appointment. Subparagraph (.)(b)(ii) was amended to require that the transfer of | 1342 |
| In addition to the foregoing, subsection (.) could be amended as follows: | 1380 |
| also need to be amended to remove any reference to the phrase does not result in a change in | 1386 |
| Section .() would also be amended as follows: | 1502 |
| Other provisions relating to trusts may similarly be amended . Paragraph ()(a.) was | 1576 |
| and paragraph .()(e), paragraph ()(a.) could be amended in such a way so as to | 1598 |
| make explicit reference to that subparagraph and paragraph (as amended in accordance with | 1600 |
| Alternatively, subsection () could be amended to provide that property is surrendered | 1628 |
| R.S.C. (th Supp.) c., as amended (the ITA). Unless otherwise | 1700 |
| |
|
AMENDMENT...........................7
|
| One of the purposes of the amendment to subparagraph (.)(b)(ii) to add the requirement | 1300 |
| amendment to paragraph (.)(a) to include only the right of an appointee pursuant to a | 1360 |
| This proposed amendment to paragraph (.)(a) would also be applicable for purposes of | 1384 |
| Another purpose of the amendment to subparagraph (.)(b)(ii) to provide the requirement | 1390 |
| Prior to the amendment , the following scenario could have arisen. An individual, X, owns | 1394 |
| suggested amendment would not, as a practical matter, give rise to abuse. | 1520 |
| is contrary to its terms. The suggested amendment would, however, appear to extend to | 1554 |
| |
|
AMENDMENTS..........................3
|
| accompany the amendments to the definition of cost amount. | 1462 |
| Amendments to paragraph .()(a) and subsection .() would be required in order to | 1492 |
| These suggested amendments might also be used in the context of subsection .(). | 1636 |
| |
|
ANALOGIZED..........................1
|
| ownership can be precisely analogized to the common law concept of beneficial ownership. | 58 |
| |
|
ANALYSED............................1
|
| or the trust. Having analysed the change in beneficial ownership question, one must now | 522 |
| |
|
ANALYSIS............................13
|
| property will enable or facilitate the analysis and determination of whether and in what | 130 |
| Waters undertakes a detailed analysis of the jurisprudence that addresses the nature of | 166 |
| analysis . That analysis, maintains Waters, will look to the facts of the particular case with a view | 172 |
| analysis. That analysis , maintains Waters, will look to the facts of the particular case with a view | 172 |
| requirement that for property to be beneficially owned by a beneficiary, a factual analysis must | 236 |
| involves a two-stage analysis . The first stage involves characterizing the nature of the rights of | 378 |
| analysis involves characterizing the rights of the beneficiary and the second stage involves an | 384 |
| dans une fiducie to be the beneficial owner of the property. Based on this analysis , in relation | 416 |
| analysis is intended to highlight some of the issues that can arise when applying certain | 718 |
| upon delivery of the goods. The analysis involved a determination of whether the taxpayer | 1178 |
| I have undertaken this analysis of the leasing contract at the time because it indicates the | 1216 |
| Our analysis of the ITA reveals that the use of the concept of beneficial ownership can be | 1274 |
| An analysis of the ITA reveals that the concept of change in beneficial ownership is intended | 1528 |
| |
|
ANALYTICAL..........................11
|
| ambit of this provision. As such, subsection () removes the first analytical hurdle, namely, | 248 |
| beneficial ownership. There are two analytical approaches to determining whether there has | 256 |
| If either analytical approach leads to a determination that there has been a change in beneficial | 258 |
| The first analytical approach looks to whether persons who were not beneficial owners of the | 260 |
| The second analytical approach to the question of whether there has been a change in the | 268 |
| no analytical framework in the civil law from which an argument either for or against can be | 346 |
| To compensate for this absence of any analytical framework, and to lend meaning to the | 348 |
| analytical framework exists to justify the treatment of the beneficiary of certain trusts as a | 730 |
| beneficial owner of the trust assets. Admittedly, the application of this analytical framework is | 732 |
| appropriate analytical approach to take, but no criteria for determining the existence of such a | 1090 |
| It is acknowledged that the analytical hurdle may not be entirely avoided because | 1738 |
| |
|
ANALYZE.............................2
|
| In Wardean Drilling and Olympia, the Courts had to analyze the word disposition and in | 1166 |
| incumbent upon civilians to analyze the question from a common law perspective, an approach | 1266 |
| |
|
ANALYZED............................1
|
| The application of Québec civil law to the facts analyzed in the Olympia and Wardean Drilling | 1188 |
| |
|
ANALYZING...........................3
|
| framework for analyzing same. | 120 |
| beneficial owner status approach). In analyzing whether there has been a change in beneficial | 262 |
| those afforded discretionary beneficiaries as a class and this leads to confusion when analyzing | 458 |
| |
|
ANNUITANT...........................2
|
| to a trust (the transferee) governed by an RRSP or an RRIF, the annuitant of the plan or fund | 1512 |
| that governs the transferor is also the annuitant of the plan or fund that governs the transferee | 1512 |
| |
|
ANOMALIES...........................1
|
| different than under the common law. There are other situations where issues or anomalies are | 548 |
| |
|
ANTI-...............................1
|
| suggest that the notion of beneficiary or beneficial owner of a particular payment is an anti- | 600 |
| |
|
ANTI-ABUSE..........................1
|
| countries, there is an abuse of the convention, and Switzerland may adopt anti-abuse measures | 1010 |
| |
|
ANTI-AVOIDANCE......................1
|
| and anti-avoidance rules. To benefit from the reduced rate provided by the treaty, the | 948 |
| |
|
ANYONE..............................2
|
| rights under the trust for anyone but the settlor. Subsequent to the Technical Bill, the | 1332 |
| Under a general power of appointment, the donee may appoint anyone in the | 1752 |
| |
|
APPEAL..............................5
|
| below, wherein the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted the ITA as overriding the civil law, | 78 |
| it is possible that the Federal Court of Appeal gave subsection () too broad a scope. | 1110 |
| The Federal Court of Appeal , in a - decision, found that the taxpayer had acquired the trucks | 1132 |
| appeal , subsection () read as follows: | 1144 |
| This objective was recognized by the Federal Court of Appeal in R. v. | 1704 |
| |
|
APPEARS.............................5
|
| before relying on it completely to resolve the matter. In particular, the statement appears in a | 568 |
| by the person. This latter category appears to be intended to allow, through the interaction with | 740 |
| answer to both questions appears to be yes. Firstly, the trust referred to in subparagraph | 766 |
| owner of the trust property. This also appears to be the result intended by Parliament having | 780 |
| The use of the expression beneficial ownership in sections and . appears to be | 1046 |
| |
|
APPLICABLE..........................5
|
| described above, is applicable for tax purposes. | 218 |
| technical interpretation letter from the CCRA and is not stated to be expressly applicable in | 570 |
| applicable to dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a contracting state to a | 954 |
| beneficial owner of the trust property. If, in Québec, a deeming provision is applicable , then | 1080 |
| This proposed amendment to paragraph (.)(a) would also be applicable for purposes of | 1384 |