Précis: Mr. Dilalla worked as a carpenter and received amounts in 2010, 2011 and 2012 from a contracting corporation of which he was sole director and shareholder. He did not report them as income arguing that “his activities were performed for the “sole purpose and intent of exercising his labour in providing a livelihood” for himself and his family. In short, he believes the amounts received were neither a source of taxable income nor dividends. [para. ].”
He conducted a discovery of the officer appointed by the Crown and was dissatisfied with the answers. He moved to examine another officer of the Crown. Bocock J. dimissed his application with costs holding it was not supported by the facts, the jurisprudence or the Rules.
Dilalla v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer not entitled to fresh discovery with new representative of the CrownREAD MORE »