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

The following cases are included in those cited by counsel: J A Taylor v MNR, [1956] CTC 189; 56 DTC 1125; Irrigation Industries Ltd v MNR, [1962] CTC 215; 62 DTC 1131; Me Laws v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 132; 65 DTC 1; J Funk v MNR, 37 Tax ABC 391; 65 DTC 139; Western Leaseholds Ltd v MNR, [1959] CTC 531; 59 DTC 1316; Os/er, Hammond & Nanton Ltd v MNR, [1963] CTC 164; 63 DTC 1119; N R Whittali v MNR, [1967] CTC 377; 67 DTC 5264; Admiral Investments Ltd v MNR, [1967] 2 Ex CR 308; [1967] CTC 165; 67 DTC 5114; Estate of Frederick J Thompson v MNR, [1970] Tax ABC 739; 70 DTC 1473; Swansburg v MNR, [1972] CTC 2125; 72 DTC 1096; Wellington Hotel Holdings Ltd v MNR, [1973] CTC 473; 73 DTC 5391. ...

The request is made in four different proceedings: (1) Mastino Developments Ltd and the Queen, where the taxpayer is described as plaintiff (appellant) and the other party as the Queen, defendant (respondent) and where the proceedings are described as a statement of claim and contain a number of allegations; (2) Welland Chemical of Canada Ltd and the Minister of National Revenue where the taxpayer is described as the appellant and the Minister of National Revenue is described as representing Her Majesty the Queen as respondent and where the document contains the following words: “Notice of appeal is hereby given from the income tax assessments... ” and the grounds for appeal are dealt with under the following separate headings: (A) Statement of facts and summary reassessments; (B) Statutory provisions and reasons which the appellant intends to submit to show that the respondent’s reassessments are in error. ...

Goodman & Carr in October 1969 by two officers of the appellant including Mr. ...

(e) That upon assessing the Appellant for 1967 he has properly computed in the under-stated manner the deduction to which the Appellant is entitled in respect of the capital cost of property used for the purpose of gaining income from farming in that year: Capital cost allowance claimed $4,710.04 Less: capital cost allowance for period 1st January to 24th June, 1967 175 X $5,778.37 — 2,770.45 365 Amount of claim disallowed upon assessment $1,939.59 (f) That upon assessment for 1968 he has properly disallowed $5,392.16 claimed as farming expenses and capital cost allowance on property used in the business of farming because the Appellant was not carrying on the business of farming, nor in fact carrying on any business upon or with respect to the heretofore mentioned 117 acres of property at Clinton in British Columbia in that year. and in the reply, the respondent also stated, inter alia, that: (a) the amount of capital cost allowance deductible by the Appellant for 1967 under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the said Act has been properly determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Income Tax Regulation 1700, because the property in respect of which capital cost allowance was claimed was used for the purpose of gaining income from farming for only part of the Appellant’s 1967 fiscal year. ...

Martland J. said for the Court (at p 30): “... the respondent submitted that a function is of a judicial or quasi-judicial character when the exercise of it effects the extinguishment or modification of private rights or interests in favour of another person, unless a contrary intent clearly appears from the statute. ...

One further exhibit, a book entitled / comunisti a Torino 1919-1972, was received as Exhibit 9. ...

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the respondent Minister and everyone under his direction and control be, and he is and they are prohibited from continuing with collection proceedings or actions against the applicant until it is lawful and fair to do — one certain criterion for which being lawful assessment of Part VIII tax actually found and assessed to be owing, upon assessment of tax in regard to applicant’s filed return for its taxation year ended February 28, 1986. ...

. — [Emphasis mine and the author's] When I look at the comparative uniformity of Canadian Statute law in relation to search and seizure provisions I find that now in almost every case the word “reasonable” is used and not the words “reasonable and probable”. ... I acknowledge that the word is used again, four years later, in Simmons, which purports to summarize Hunter, but five years earlier in Coopers & Lybrand, the word "probable" was not mentioned. ... This argument relates to the warrants which were issued allowing searches to be made of the offices of Baron & Abrams (barristers and solicitors) and Baron & Merton (chartered accountants). ...

During the period from 1962 to 1 April 1969, the Plaintiff expended. the following sums in furtherance of the business of exploration carried out by him: 1962 $ 6,500.00 1963 1,122.09 1964 908.96 1965 6,257.07 1966 19,811.09 1967 60,795.80 1968 6,953.95 1969 2,862.05 1970 1,208.60 $106,019.61 4. ... More conclusively I cannot accept the proposition that the company carried on a hobby as agent for the plaintiff for to do so would be to disregard the very concept of the nature of a corporation laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co, [1897] 2 AC 22, where Lord Hershell said at page 42:... I am at a loss to understand what is meant by saying that A Salomon & Company Limited is but an “alias” for A Salomon. ...

The plaintiff is also authorized under its Memorandum of Association to carry out the following activities: — to invest and deal with the monies of the Company not immediately required in such a manner as from time to time may be determined; — to take over, manage and dispose of in any manner whatsoever, any business or undertaking in which the Company, may be interested or in the securities of which it may have invested its funds or with which it may have business relations; — to buy or otherwise acquire and hold, sell and deal in real property and personal property of all kinds and rights, in particular lands,... business or industrial concerns and undertakings, mortgages or charges on personal property,... securities... book debts Terry Summach (Terry S.) and his immediate family own fifty per cent of Flexi-Coil’s shares and his uncle, Ken Summach (Ken S.) and his immediate family own the other fifty per cent. ...