| |
|
APPOINTER...........................3
|
| considered as such until the appointer s discretion is exercised in their favour. In other | 212 |
| exercise by the appointer of its discretion in their favour. Recall, both Waters and Oosterhoff | 214 |
| bring the appointer under the power before the Courts if the power is exercised in a manner that | 1554 |
| |
|
APPOINTMENT.........................42
|
| power of appointment exercisable on death and that the trust deed provides for certain persons | 134 |
| of the exercise of a reserved power of appointment may be considered among the equitable | 210 |
| appointment may be considered beneficially interested in trust property. The ITA includes | 230 |
| in the absence of default beneficiaries where the settlor retained a specific power of appointment | 300 |
| persons contemplated in the specific power of appointment . Consequently, a change in | 302 |
| retains a general power of appointment exercisable on death, a change in beneficial ownership | 304 |
| of appointment exercisable on death and that the trust deed provides for certain persons (the | 388 |
| defaults or partial exercise of the power of appointment . The issue then becomes whether such | 394 |
| to a true power of appointment , in the common law sense, the term appointee would be a more | 486 |
| fact, envisions a discretionary trust and not a power of appointment . Guy Fortin seems to | 488 |
| endorse this submission when he speaks of a settlors reservation of a power of appointment as | 490 |
| examine whether potential appointees under a power of appointment or discretionary | 524 |
| case of a self-benefit trust the settlor does not reserve a specific power of appointment | 1302 |
| contributor and is a general power of appointment . The CCRA took the same view when it | 1306 |
| that the retention of a general power of appointment by the settlor on the transfer of | 1308 |
| or her lifetime and the individual retains a specific or hybrid power of appointment , it is our view | 1314 |
| or subsection .() rollover treatment. In other words, the general power of appointment | 1330 |
| settlor retains a specific power of appointment exercisable in his or her will. | 1336 |
| pursuant to a specific power of appointment . Accordingly, it is the condition in subparagraph | 1338 |
| ensures that only a general power of appointment may be reserved by the settlor. Paragraph | 1340 |
| appointment . Subparagraph (.)(b)(ii) was amended to require that the transfer of | 1342 |
| effect, requires that the power of appointment contemplated by paragraph (.)(a) be a | 1344 |
| general power of appointment , meaning that the appointor must have the power to appoint to | 1346 |
| settlor of a self-benefit trust reserves a general power of appointment because the settlors | 1348 |
| reservation of a specific power of appointment as resulting in a change in beneficial ownership, | 1352 |
| objective to prohibit the reservation of a specific power of appointment in the context of a self- | 1354 |
| general power of appointment exercised in the last will and testament or other testamentary | 1360 |
| appointment and absolute or contingent right as a beneficiary. | 1362 |
| professor Marc Jolin, a general power of appointment is null and void in civil law. | 1364 |
| of appointment cannot be exercised if it is conferred on a person other than the settlor. | 1372 |
| appointment under common law or civil law, a specific definition of general power of | 1374 |
| appointment could be developed for this purpose. It is interesting to note that the regulations | 1376 |
| appointment as one that allows the holder of the power to appoint to the decedent, his estate, | 1378 |
| appointment that may only be exercised in the will or other testamentary instrument of an | 1382 |
| transferor does not retain a specific power of appointment . | 1388 |
| power of appointment exercisable in his will. X relies on subsection () to receive rollover | 1398 |
| owner. The property is subject to a specific power of appointment such that there is a resultant | 1546 |
| subject to the power of appointment . Other authors agree with Brown that a potential | 1550 |
| the potential future right of an appointee under a specific power of appointment . Of course, | 1556 |
| Under a special i.e., specific power of appointment , the choice of appointees is | 1748 |
| Under a general power of appointment , the donee may appoint anyone in the | 1752 |
| Technical Interpretation Letter -, Power of Appointment Exercisable by Will | 1754 |
| |
|
APPOINTOR...........................2
|
| general power of appointment, meaning that the appointor must have the power to appoint to | 1346 |
| whomsoever he or she chooses, including the estate of the appointor . | 1346 |
| |
|
APPROACH............................52
|
| elucidate a civilian approach to property. It was Austin who incorporated them into common | 150 |
| approach and at other times it couches decisions in terms of the proprietary rights that a | 168 |
| Oosterhoff and Gillese seem to concur with Waters. They adopt a proprietary approach to | 180 |
| approach . In that case, Trans-Canada Investment Corp. Ltd., the respondent, purchased | 184 |
| and Gillese suggest that beneficial ownership (i.e., a proprietary approach to trust property), is | 216 |
| an appropriate approach when it is the beneficiarys liability for tax that is at issue. Thus, the | 216 |
| perspective from which to view the problem. This approach , however, is subject to the | 234 |
| 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 |
| beneficial owner status approach ). In analyzing whether there has been a change in beneficial | 262 |
| ownership using this approach , one must identify and establish who, prior to the transaction, are | 264 |
| before and after the transaction are not identical, then under this approach , there has been a | 266 |
| The second analytical approach to the question of whether there has been a change in the | 268 |
| approach ). This approach examines whether, in effecting the transaction, the settlor has given | 272 |
| approach). This approach examines whether, in effecting the transaction, the settlor has given | 272 |
| is yes, then under this approach , there has been a change in the beneficial ownership of the | 274 |
| change in beneficial ownership under this approach . | 286 |
| constituting the trust, from the beneficial owner status approach , the settlor has effected a | 294 |
| given up some of the rights enjoyed over the property and, using the settlors rights approach | 298 |
| beneficiary, the beneficial owner status approach to determining whether there has been a | 316 |
| considered the beneficial owner thereof. As such, from the beneficial owner status approach , | 466 |
| The rights as a beneficiary approach may yield a different result. Recall, this approach | 470 |
| The rights as a beneficiary approach may yield a different result. Recall, this approach | 470 |
| payment. This approach to the meaning of beneficial ownership is not inconsistent with the | 602 |
| approach taken by Canadian Courts in identifying persons beneficially entitled to property in | 604 |
| rules of equity evolved in the courts of chancery in connection with trusts. This approach was | 658 |
| that arises is whether there is a basis for adopting a similar approach to interpreting or applying | 696 |
| context. In the authors view, it is arguable that such an approach is inappropriate. The scheme | 698 |
| take a liberal approach to the interpretation of the words belongs to to connect Aco and Bco | 888 |
| common law trust were involved. This bijural harmonization approach to the interpretation of | 890 |
| Indeed, one commentator notes that, in a non-offensive context, the Courts approach | 1028 |
| appropriate analytical approach to take, but no criteria for determining the existence of such a | 1090 |
| broad approach to interpreting the subsection. While the result may be appropriate from a tax | 1102 |
| policy perspective, it is questionable whether the approach is otherwise appropriate. The | 1104 |
| adopt a uniform and equitable approach at the national level for such transactions, whatever | 1222 |
| Under the latter approach , economic ownership would be defined, in relation to the Province of | 1234 |
| beneficial ownership. Finally, the duet approach would use common and civil law terms in | 1236 |
| approach be adopted. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a definition that | 1246 |
| concept of beneficial ownership. For these reasons, any approach that attempts to equate | 1252 |
| beneficial ownership is not, in the authors view, the preferred approach . Although the defined | 1254 |
| incumbent upon civilians to analyze the question from a common law perspective, an approach | 1266 |
| below are various examples of this approach . | 1282 |
| expression does not result in a change in beneficial ownership. An alternative approach might | 1356 |
| subsection .() for this valuation based approach , admittedly in a different context, which | 1476 |
| or contingent right requirement in paragraph ()(a). Under this approach paragraph | 1588 |
| currently in the legislation. Under this approach , paragraph ()(a.) could read as follows: | 1602 |
| the ITA for such an approach to determining ownership of shares through a trust in paragraphs | 1648 |
| In this context, the approach suggested with respect to share-for-share exchanges could be | 1650 |
| trust property. For these reasons, there is a need to adopt a more systematic approach to the | 1684 |
| property through a trust. A systematic approach to defining ownership in the ITA might involve, | 1686 |
| deeming property held in trust to be owned by the beneficiaries. The approach that has been | 1688 |
| legal title. Under this approach , or a variation thereof, the tax policy objectives or concerns | 1694 |