Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 46-60 of 101
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Finance committee  That's correct.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  I think that if you know that there won't be a premium billing and your recovery rate's at 100%, then that's probably what you would do to determine the fair market value of it, although there are other considerations. However, that's not the situation you were talking about. Y

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  I thought you were going to ask a different question, which I was happy about, because I'd forgotten to mention that this measure initially had a two-year phase-in period and after the consultation was extended to five. In terms of timing, that's worth noting. That came out as a

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  The amount captured in a particular year would just be the amount of income that's earned in that year, and—

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  Okay, so first, I thought you were getting at the end of the year when you're determining how much to include in your income and whether you take into consideration—

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  —your billings that are going to happen after the end of the year. It really is your work in progress of the amount that has accrued until that point in time. Will you put in 10 hours and plan to bill it out on January 15, or is it a municipal board hearing that could go on for

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  This is a technical amendment that had been released in September 2016 for comment. My colleague Pierre is just more of a pension expert than I am, but this is a technical tax amendment. It essentially allows couples to be able to split the retirement income security benefit un

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  That's a situation where a lawyer has no revenues in the year.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  Right, and you say it's on a contingency basis.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  As I said, there is case law to the effect that if there's real uncertainty about whether you'll get it or not, then it might not be included in the year.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  You go to the case law in the Canada Revenue Agency—

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  For the criteria to help you determine if your case is sufficiently likely to result in income...but also you could have a valuation of the lower of cost or market.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  That's right.

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  To answer your question, there are a few things I think that are implied in that. You say that a lawyer paid tax in one year and then after the end of the year determined the amount to be uncollectible or a bad outcome. In the first year, they would have had to have made the dete

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan

Finance committee  As I noted earlier, it depends on the specific facts. I'd probably need a bit more detail in your case, but I can say there is case law and CRA administrative guidance in support of the proposition if there's real uncertainty about the outcome of the case. If it's a contingency f

November 2nd, 2017Committee meeting

Trevor McGowan