The Queen v. Eggert, 85 DTC 5522,  2 CTC 343 (FCTD)
The taxpayer's interpretation was rejected since it had the effect of repositioning a parenthesis in s. 6(1)(b)(vii).
Matthew v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1454 (TCC)
Before going on to refer to the absence of a comma in the relevant portion of s. 90(1)(a) of the Indian Act, Rip TCJ. stated (at p. 1457) that...
|Locations of other summaries||Wordcount|
|Tax Topics - Other Legislation/Constitution - Federal - Indian Act - Section 90||81|