The Queen v. Savage, 83 DTC 5409, [1983] CTC 393, [1983] 2 SCR 428 -- summary under Redundancy/ reading in words/ speaking in vain

By services, 28 November, 2015

An interpretation was avoided which would have rendered redundant the exclusion from income under s. 56(1)(n), for the first $500 of prize money, by including that same amount in income under s. 6(1)(a) (p. 5416). In rejecting the Crown’s submission that the prize was taxable under s. 5 or 6, Dickson J stated (at p. 446, SCR):

Section 56(1)(n) makes it clear that a prize for achievement is income from a source under s. 3 just as income from an office or employment is income from a source under s. 3. If a prize under $500 would still be taxable under ss. 5 and 6, it would have to follow on the Crown's argument that a prize under $500 would equally be taxable under s. 3. That cannot be right. That would mean that a prize over $500 would be taxable under s. 56(1)(n) and a prize up to $500 would be taxable under s. 3. The $500 exclusion in s. 56(1)(n) would never have any effect.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
exclusion in specific provision extended to general provision to avoid redundancy
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
340379
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Savage</em></strong>, 83 DTC 5409, [1983] CTC 393, [1983] 2 SCR 428",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state