Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd., [1954] S.C.R. 55; [1954] C.T.C. 28; Evans v. ... This case may be contrasted with the earlier decision of the Privy Council in Ward & Company, Limited v. ... Meade- King Robinson & Co. Ltd. (1938), 22 Tax Cas. 97, at p. 105. ...

By supplementary letters patent dated November 10, 1966, the appellant’s name was changed to ‘‘ Lea- Don Canada Limited’’. ... The appellant rested its case on the proposition that the parent company was a taxpayer within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, basing its argument: (1) on the contention that by virtue of the definition in Section 139(1) (av), ‘* ‘taxpayer’ includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax’’ and the deduction on account of depreciable property being from income, not from taxable income, is “applicable” to those whose income is not taxable; and (2) on the narrower basis that the tax withheld on the rent of the aircraft due to the parent company and remitted to the respondent under Part III of the Income Tax Act qualified the appellant as a taxpayer. ...

., [1953] 1 S.C.R. 3 at p. 6; [1952] C.T.C. 334 at p. 337 as follows: ‘* ‘It is quite. a well settled principle in dealing with questions of income tax that where the owner of an ordinary investment chooses to realize it, and obtains a greater price for it than he originally acquires it at, the enhanced price is not profit in the sense of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act of 1842 assessable to income tax. But it is equally well established that enhanced values obtained from realization or conversion of securities may be so assessable where what is done is not merely a realization or change of investment, but an act done in what is truly the carrying on, or carrying out, of a business.’ ”’ In Cooper v. ...

WATSON & McLEOD LTD., Appellant, and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent. ... The land also adjoined the western boundary of land belonging to and held by the Spyhill Development & Holding Co. ... Taylor, [1956] C.T.C 189, are summarized. 2 + Vide Irrigation Industries Ltd. v. ...

The relevant provisions of s. 126A are as follows: 126A. (1) In this section *** (b) "custodian" means a person in whose custody a package is placed pursuant to subsection (3); *** (e) "solicitor-client privilege" means the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between him and his lawyer in professional confidence. *** (3) Where an officer is about to examine or seize a document in the possession of a lawyer and the lawyer claims that a named client of his has a solicitor—client privilege in respect of that document, the officer shall, without examining or making copies of the document, (a) seize the document and place it, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package; and (b) place the package in the custody of the sheriff of the district or county in which the seizure was made or, if the officer and the lawyer agree in writing upon a person to act as custodian, in the custody of such person. (4) Where a document has been seized and placed in custody under subsection (3), the client, or the lawyer on behalf of the client, may [Page 89] (a) within 14 days from the day the document was so placed in custody, apply, upon 3 days' notice of motion to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, to a judge for an order (i) fixing a day (not later than 21 days after the date of the order) and place for the determination of the question whether the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, and (ii) requiring the custodian to produce the document to the judge at that time and place; (b) serve a copy of the order on the Deputy Attorney General of Canada and the custodian within 6 days of the day on which it was made, and, within the same time, pay to the custodian the estimated expenses of transporting the document to and from the place of hearing and of safeguarding it; and (c) if he has proceeded as authorized by paragraph (b), apply, at the appointed time and place, for an order determining the question. (5) An application under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) shall be heard in camera, and on the application (a) the judge may, if he considers it necessary to determine the question, inspect the document and, if he does so, he shall ensure that it is repackaged and resealed; and (b) the judge shall decide the matter summarily and, (i) if he is of opinion that the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the lawyer, and (ii) if he is of opinion that the client does not have a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order the custodian to deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, and he shall, at the same time, deliver concise reasons in which he shall describe the nature of the document without divulging the details thereof. *** (7) The custodian shall (a) deliver the document to the lawyer (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the officer or by or on behalf of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section; or (b) deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation (i) in accordance with a consent executed by the lawyer or the client, or (ii) in accordance with an order of a judge under this section. *** (11) The custodian shall not deliver a document to any person except in accordance with an order of a judge or a consent under this section or except to any officer or servant of the custodian for the purposes of safeguarding the document. ... Solicitors for the respondent: Ladner, Downs, Ladner, Locke, Clark & Lenox, Vancouver. [1] [1963] C.T.C. 1, 62 D.T.C. 1331. [2] (1964), 64 D.T.C. 5107. [3] [1963] C.T.C. 1, 62 D.T.C. 1331. [4] (1964), 64 D.T.C. 5107. [5] [1944] S.C.R. 69 at 72, 1 D.L.R. 495. ...

Support for this contention is sought in the circumstances that if "mine" has the first of the two suggested meanings, then, (i) the phrase "certified … to have been operating on mineral deposits" is inapt as it presupposes an entity capable of carrying on operations; and (ii) the draftsman should have substituted for the clause "that came into production" the clause "that was brought into production". ... It appears to me that the construction for which the respondent contends necessitates adding to the section some such words as those I have italicized so as to make it read: "that came into production of ore for the first time during the calendar years 1946 to 1954 inclusive" or "that first came into production …". ... Solicitors for the appellant: Manning, Mortimer, Mundell & Bruce, Toronto. ...

The learned judge was influenced also by the view that the payments were voluntary and, by the evidence of an officer of the manufacturer, that they were made out of the latter’s ‘‘ allotment for advertising which he could use at his discretion”. ... On the sale by Stuart of the business to the respondent company some ten years later, it was agreed between Stuart and the respondent company that “... from then on, Smith Brothers would make these payments not to me, as they had, but to the company. ... In his statement to the Foreign Exchange Control Board, Stuart stated, inter alia, “... when I incorporated this selling agency under the name of ‘John Stuart Sales Limited’ this Company was entitled to these commissions.” ...

Solicitors for the appellant: Sinclair, Goodenough, Higginbottom & McDonnell, Toronto. ... O’Flynn (in her personal capacity), respondent: Cameron & Sprague, Belleville. ... Waters, respondent: Borden, Elliot, Kelley, Palmer & Sankey, Toronto. ...

., [1961] CTC 160, [1961] DTC 1105 '. TASCHEREAU, J.:—During the relevant periods, the respondent was engaged in the processing of raw sheepskin which it transformed into finished mouton skins and shearling. ... & W. 633 at pages 646 and 650; Knutson v. Bourkes Syndicate, [1941] S.C.R. 419; The Municipality of the City and County of St. ... It was an influence which took away the voluntary character from the payment and yet which could not be ranked with * crainte et violence’. ...

Customs Act— Importation of cattle — Smuggling—Clandestinely introducing cattle into Canada—Claim for return of deposit made to secure release of cattle seized—Evidence, APPEAL from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada [1] by which the appellants' petition of right was refused with costs. ...