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

However, in Vancouver A & W Drive-Ins Ltd v United Food Services Ltd (1981), 13 BLR 89, 38 BCLR 30, Mr Justice Fulton concluded that the relation- ship between the company administering the plan and the debtor was that of a trustee — cestui que trust. ...

The authorization reads as follows: IN THE MATTER OF the Income Tax Act — and — IN THE MATTER OF Goden Holdings Limited, Ruthbern Holdings Limited, Kel- burn Management Limited and Joseph Burnett. ... The scheme of the Act is not to seize, then search — but to search, and seize only documents that may afford evidence of violations. ... The application under subsection 24(1) for the return of materials seized on May 13, 1975 and March 1, 1977 is allowed in part: I direct the return of all materials seized on May 13, 1975 from the premises of Samuel Gotfrid QC, including 133 Richmond Street West, Zeifman & Co and Perlmutter, Orenstein, Giddens, Newman & Co except for the materials that the Crown reasonably foresees it will require as evidence at trial. ...

The warrants were executed on June 17, and a large number of documents were seized and taken away by the agents, employees and representatives of the Department of National Revenue — Taxation and the R.C.M.P. ... The right can be protected by maintaining the status quo — that is, by denying further access to the investigators pending resolution of the issues raised. ... Eli Drakik, an officer of the Department of National Revenue — Taxation Paragraph 3 to have added at the end thereof “In accordance with s. 231.3(8) and s. 232 of the Income Tax Act". ...

. — Income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year plus (a) the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatsoever (except the benefit he derives from his employer’s contributions to or under a registered pension fund or plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, medical services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance policy) received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of the office or employment; and... 8. (1) Appropriation of property to shareholders. — Where, in a taxation year, (b) funds or property of a corporation have been appropriated in any manner whatsoever to, or for the benefit of, a shareholder, or the amount or value thereof shall be included in computing the income of the shareholder for the year. 137. (2) Indirect payments or transfers. — Where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatsoever is that a person confers a benefit on a taxpayer, that person shall be deemed to have made a payment to the taxpayer equal to the amount of the benefit conferred notwithstanding the form or legal effect of the transactions or that one or more other persons were also parties thereto; and, whether or not there was an intention to avoid or evade taxes under this Act, the payment shall, depending upon the circumstances, be (a) included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the purposes of Part I, The question is, what quality must be attached to a profit, gain or benefit before it can be characterized as “income” for the purpose of taxation? ... The Court recognized that each commission carried with it an obligation — a contingent liability — to return a proportionate part in case of policy cancellation. ...

Subsections (1) and (2) of section 231 are as follows: (1) — Any person thereunto authorized by the Minister, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, may, at all reasonable times, enter into any premises or place where any business is carried on or any property is kept or anything is done in connection with any business or any books or records are or should be kept, and (a) audit or examine the books and records and any account, voucher, letter, telegram or other document which relates or may relate to the information that is or should be in the books or records or the amount of tax payable under this Act, (b) examine property described by an inventory or any property, process or matter an examination of which may, in his opinion, assist him in determining the accuracy of an inventory or in ascertaining the information that is or should be in the books or records or the amount of any tax payable under this Act, (c) require the owner or manager of the property or business and any other person on the premises or place to give him all reasonable assistance with his audit or examination and to answer all proper questions relating to the audit or examination either orally or, if he so requires, in writing, on oath or by statutory declaration and, for that purpose, require the owner or manager to attend at the premises or place with him, and (d) if, during the course of an audit or examination, it appears to him that there has been a violation of this Act or a regulation, seize and take away any of the documents, books, records, papers or things that may be required as evidence as to the violation of any provision of this Act or a regulation. (2) — The Minister shall, (a) within 120 days from the date of seizure of any documents, books, records, papers or things pursuant to paragraph (l)(d), or (b) if within that time an application is made under this subsection that is, after the expiration of that time, rejected, then forthwith upon the disposition of the application. return the documents, books, records, papers or things to the person from whom they were seized unless a judge of a superior court or county court, on application made by or on behalf of the Minister, supported by evidence on oath establishing that the Minister has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there has been a violation of this Act or a regulation and that the seized documents, books, records, papers or things are or may be required as evidence in relation thereto, orders that they be retained by the Minister until they are produced in any court proceedings, which order the judge is hereby empowered to give on ex parte application. ... I was referred to New Garden Restaurant & Tavern Ltd, et al v MNR, [1983] CTC 332; 43 OR (2d) 417, a decision of my brother White and to Roth v The Queen, [1984] CTC 185; 84 DTC 6181, by Callon, J. ...

Moreover, as appears from Director of Investigation & Research v. ... Shanoff says the illusion is highlighted by the following passage from the decision in James Richardson & Sons, Limited v. ... However, it appears from the decision in James Richardson & Sons, Limited, as well as other decisions including Director of Investigation and Research, and from evidence called by both sides on the original motion in this case, that this was not simply a fishing expedition. ...

As further stated by Riddell, J in the same case, citing Rock v Pursell (1887), 84 LT Jo 45: “Anything which can have any effect at all in determining the rights of the parties can be proved, and consequently can be pleaded — but the Court will not allow any fact to be alleged which is wholly immaterial and can have no effect upon the result.” ...

In addition, the application relates to one further document which was described as a letter from Lang, Michener, Cranston, Farquharson & Wright to Mr R Thorlacious of the Mutual Life Assurance Company as to which Mutual Life also claims privilege and which the parties have requested me to consider and rule on. ... The document ends with the phrase so familiar to lawyers — “This is our account. ...

Counts three and four charged offences of failing on the same dates (that is, November 4 & 5, 1976) to file a return for the taxation year. 1973. ...

Counsel for the Crown in argument of the said case pointed out that by Statutes of Canada 1943-1944, Chapter XXIV, Section 3 subsection 4 an amendment of the scheme of the Income War Tax Act was wrought by providing that where the words ""Commissioner of Income Tax’’ appeared throughout the Statute they should be read as being " ‘Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Taxation),’’ and that the effect of the amendment was to confer upon the Deputy Minister the powers conferred by the provisions of Section 31 of the Interpretation Act, Section 31 subsection 1 rather than the limited power formerly exercised by the Commissioner. ...