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

Before voiding the search warrant for the law firm premises and ordering the related documents to be returned, Hilton JCA stated (at paras. 43, 44, 47, 48, 51): Justice Arbour reminded…in Lavalee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada … [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 [para. 49]: …Before searching a law office, the investigative authorities must satisfy the issuing justice that there exists no other reasonable alternative to the search. … The Agency had an affirmative obligation, which it disregarded, to demonstrate that there was no other alternative solution, and the judge could not ignore this. … [T]he simple fact that a Trimax representative had mentioned that there were documents at his lawyer did not establish that such documents could not be found elsewhere. … The absence of an alternative solution was not at all addressed in the information and the judge could not satisfy her formal review obligation respecting such absence on the basis of other alleged facts. … [I]t would appear that it was ease and convenience which motivated the request for a search warrant for the law firm…. ...

Respecting ITA s. 159, Little J stated (at paras 53, 54): … Parliament could have chosen to make all beneficiaries of the estate liable as well but chose not to do so. … [T]hat is sensible – the beneficiaries have no control over when or how much is distributed. Presumably for similar reasons, Parliament chose not to deal with whether a legal representative could seek indemnity from beneficiaries. … Little J further found that the Respondents were under no obligation to indemnify the Applicant for any income tax or penalties imposed on the Applicant as a result of her failure to obtain a clearance certificate before distributing the estate, stating (at paras 61-63): … Ms. ...

. … [T]he VAT Directive … must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings …. ...

Before reversing the decision below to confirm these reassessments, the Court of Appeal stated (at para. 13, TaxInterpretations translation): The appellant was not required to make out a prima facie case that the 7.89% rate was unreasonable but, rather, that the assumption, on which the respondent relied in assessing it, that the 10% interest rate deducted from its income for the taxation years in issue was not "reasonable in the circumstances," … was prima facie … unsound. ... Giguère testified to for the purpose of unsecured financing of vehicle inventories …. ...

Here, that is visa status, a characteristic which depends on nationality – a person not being an Australian national – the very attribute protected by Art 25(1). … Discrimination jurisprudence establishes that the circumstances of the person alleged to have suffered discriminatory treatment and which are related to the prohibited ground are to be excluded from the circumstances of the comparator. ...

. … The idea that … a company, has a separate legal personality from its shareholders has been protected and reaffirmed from Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 onwards. ...

The shares of HHT would be transferred to Boulevard LP in exchange for REIT units – except that shareholders electing for rollover treatment would exchange their shares instead with Boulevard LP for Class B exchangeable LP units of Boulevard LP. ... While it might be stretching the point to contend that the holders of the common shares of HHT are receiving, in exchange, the securities of "another body corporate", even though Boulevard LP would be acting at the instance of its corporate general partner, Boulevard GP, given the pervasive use of real estate investment trusts in our contemporary economy, I conclude that the key operative portion of the plan – the exchange of securities – constitutes "any other reorganization or scheme involving the business or affairs of the corporation or of any or all of the holders of its securities or of any options or rights to acquire any of its securities that is, at law, an arrangement", within the meaning of OBCA s. 182(1) (h). ...

In finding that Houmet had no beneficial entitlement to the interest, Falk LJ first stated (at paras. 49, 52 and 54): [T]he concept of beneficial ownership is well established …. In essence, it means ownership for the benefit of the person in question …. ... There was no evidence to suggest that Houmet could have used the funds received for any other purpose [other than to pay for the assignment to it], or that it could benefit from them in any other manner. … Further, Houmet's involvement was entirely ephemeral …. ...

The Court found that, in light of considerations of procedural fairness, the Quebec equivalent of ITA s. 165(3) should be read as if it contained the additional bolded words noted below (para. 17): [T]he Minister shall … reconsider the assessment and … make a reassessment, and send the Minister's decision to the person by mail and to its designated representative, if any. ...

The "typical sources" of goodwill acknowledged in Murry were "typical sources" because " they motivate service or provide competitive prices that attract customers " (emphasis added). And Murry and the decision which preceded it, Box [(1952) 86 CLR 387], recognised that in the modern world, patronage – in the sense of customers through the door – was no longer the sole means of generating or adding value (or earnings) to a business by attracting custom. ... That unexplained gap suggests that the DCF calculations used by Barrick's valuers to value Placer's land, its principal asset, were wrong. … [T]he danger identified by the majority in Murry of attributing a value to goodwill which actually inheres in an asset was readily apparent. … At the acquisition date, Placer was a land rich company which had no material property comprising legal goodwill. … [italics in original] Words and Phrases goodwill ...