James v. Canada, 2001 DTC 5075 (FCA)
The matter was remitted for a new trial on the basis of a finding (at p. 5082) that on some occasions the trial judge had "acted in a manner that could reasonably lead an objective observer to conclude that he had taken on the role of counsel for the Crown" (pp. 5082-83). The Court stated (at p. 5082) that "the general rule is that a judge may ask a witness questions of clarification and amplification, but should not intervene in the questioning of a witness to such an extent as to give the impression of taking on the role of counsel".
|Locations of other summaries||Wordcount|
|Tax Topics - General Concepts - Evidence||54|
|Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 165 - Subsection 165(3)||vacating not a remedy for lack of due dispatch||86|
|Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 56 - Subsection 56(2)||no s. 56(2) inclusion to taxpayer if recipient of the transferred property had earned it rather than the taxpayer||332|
91 C.R. - Q.58
The statement in IC 77-9R concerning the disclosure in a T1 return of an interest in a controlled foreign affiliate or the beneficial interest in a non-resident discretionary trust is intended as a suggestion rather than a requirement.
91 C.R. - Q.57
District Office audit screeners can obtain computer-generated listings of persons who have claimed a capital gains deductions and they can select audits from these lists.
91 C.R. - Q.56
No formal request for a copy of the T20 audit or T401 appeals report is required.
91 C.R. - Q.55
Head Office's input is provided upon request; it generally does not have any input into the preparation or content of a position paper or audit report.