Test Bank for Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada 9th by Hilton

Test Bank for Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada 9th

by Hilton

full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-modern-

advanced-accounting-in-canada-9th-by-hilton/

c2
Student: ___________________________________________________________________________

1. Which of the following types of share investment does NOT qualify as a strategic investment?

A. Significant influence investments.

B. Joint Control investments.
C. Investments without significant influence.
D. Controlled investments.

2. A significant influence investment is one that:

A. allows the investor to exercise significant influence over the strategic operating and financing
policies of the Associate.
B. allows the investor to exercise significant influence over only the financing policies of the
Associate.
C. allows the investor to exercise significant influence over only the operating policies of the
Associate.
D. allows the investor to exercise significant influence over the strategic and operating policies of
the Associate.

3. What is the dominant factor used to distinguish portfolio investments from significant influence
investments?

A. Use of the Cost Method to account for and report the investment.
B. Use of the Equity Method to account for and report the investment.
C. The investor's intention to establish or maintain a long-term operating relationship with the
investee.
D. The percentage of equity held by the investor.

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

4. Which of the following statements is TRUE under IFRS 9?

A. All unrealized gains and losses on equity investments flow through Other Comprehensive
Income (OCI).
B. Unrealized gains and losses on fair value through profit and loss (FVTPL) securities are
included in Other Comprehensive Income.
C. Unrealized gains and losses on equity investments may be included in Other Comprehensive
Income (OCI) only if a decision to do so is made when the investment is acquired.
D. Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) is included in Retained Earnings.

5. Gains and losses on fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL) securities:

A. are included in net income, regardless of whether they are realized or not.
B. are included in net income only when the investment has become permanently impaired.
C. are included in net income only when realized.
D. are never recorded until the securities are sold.

6. How are realized gains from the sale of investments accounted for at fair value through Other
Comprehensive Income (FVTOCI) accounted for under IFRS 9?

A. They are transferred to net income in the period of the sale.

B. They remain in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.
C. They are transferred to Retained Earnings without going through net income.
D. They are transferred to Contributed Surplus.

7. When using the cost method of accounting, which method should be used to determine the
carrying value of shares sold when a portion of the shares making up an investment is sold?

A. Average cost.
B. Specific cost.
C. Last in, first out.
D. First in, first out.

8. What percentage of ownership is used as a guideline to determine that significant influence exists
under IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures?

A. 20% or more.
B. Less than 20%.
C. Between 20% and 50%.
D. 25% or more.
9. Which of the following methods uses procedures closest to those used in preparing consolidated
financial statements?

A. Fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL).

B. The cost method.
C. Fair value through other comprehensive income.
D. The equity method.

10. Which of the following is NOT a possible indicator of significant influence?

A. The investor has the ability to elect members to the Board of Directors.
B. The investor has the right to participate in the policy-making process.
C. The investor has engaged in numerous intercompany transactions with the Associate.
D. The Associate's new CEO was previously CEO of the investor company.

11. Which of the following statements is CORRECT?

A. Control is only possible if the Investor owns more than 50% of the voting shares of the
Associate.
B. An ownership interest between 20% and 50% always implies significant influence.
C. An ownership interest between 0 and 10% can never imply significant influence.
D. Significant influence is still possible if the Investor owns less than 20% of the voting shares of
the Associate.

12. The difference between the investor's cost and the investor's percentage of the carrying value of
the net identifiable assets of the associate is known as:

A. Goodwill.
B. the Acquisition Differential.
C. the Fair Value Increment.
D. the Excess Book Value.

13. Any unallocated positive acquisition differential is normally:

A. pro-rated across the Associate's identifiable net assets.

B. charged to Retained Earnings.
C. recorded as Goodwill.
D. expensed during the year following the acquisition.
 Another random document
un-related content on Scribd:
 Percentage of persons brought to trial 92.8 96.9 93.5
Acquitted 871 1,816 74
Percentage of persons brought to trial 6.7 2.8 4.6
Persons previously convicted 2,493 4,237 266
Percentage of total convicted 20.6 6.9 17.6
Persons with more than 4 previous 43
convictions among these 766 593
Percentage of previously convicted 30.7 14.0 16.2

The figures given above concerning the convictions of Poles and Jews, refer
exclusively to convictions according to the Penal Ordinance for Poles, that is to
say, mainly to such crimes which have been committed in the Incorporated
Eastern Territories. However, crimes are also included which have been
committed in other districts of the German Reich by Jews and Poles, who on 1
September 1939 had their residence or permanent abode in the territory of the
former Polish state (No. XIV of the Penal Ordinance for Poles).[365]
Contrary to expectations, the quota of Poles and Jews previously convicted is
low; this can first of all be explained by the fact that some of the criminal
records were destroyed in the eastern territories; furthermore that during the
fighting in autumn 1939, the Poles opened the doors of the penitentiaries and
released dangerous criminals who, in most cases, turned criminals again and
were brought before the German summary courts; a great number of those
retaken, against whom fresh violations of the law could not directly be proved,
were sent to concentration camps as a preventive measure. In both instances,
therefore, persons who had previous convictions were thus omitted from the
census of criminal statistics. Taking these points into consideration, the quota of
Poles and Jews previously convicted has still to be regarded as comparatively
high.
Particulars concerning the most important punishable actions, committed by
the above mentioned groups of persons which have led to a conviction, can be
obtained from chart I B.
With regard to the penalties imposed upon them by the courts a total of 1,138
Protectorate Nationals, Poles, and Jews, as well as Jews by race were sentenced
to death during the current year according to chart 2. These figures include 930
Poles and Jews sentenced under the crimes ordinance for Poles. The total
number of penal servitude sentences, imposed for limited periods of time,
against Protectorate Nationals and Jews by race amounts to 2,237 and the jail
sentences amount to 7,321. By virtue of the criminal ordinance for Poles the
sentence of penal camp for hard labor was imposed in 2,017 cases and that of
regular penal camp in 43,180 cases.
The total fines imposed, amount to 20,694.
85 defendants had their property confiscated.
* * * * * * *
Chart 2 Punishments meted out in the year 1942 on account of crimes and
offenses against Reich laws
Punishments[366] meted out to--
German Nationals Inhabitants of Poles[367] Racial Jews
Sentences (and Foreigners the Protectorate and
Total of this Jews
total to
juveniles
Death sentences 1,061 18 186 930 22
Penal servitude sentences:
For life
For a certain length of time, in toto 15,850 56 2,112 125
For less than 3 years 9,307 18 1,294 56
For 3 years and more 6,543 38 818 69
Total of jail sentences 143,885 9,695 6,875 646
Of them--
For less than 3 months 59,736 2,520 2,595 348
For 3 months up to 1 year 88,012 5,315 3,020 218
For one year and more 14,881 504 1,051 80
For an undetermined length of time 1,256 1,256 9
Severe penal camp total of
sentences imposed 2,017
Of them--
For less than 5 years 1,257
For 5 years or more 760
Ordinary penal camp total
of sentences imposed 43,180
Of them--
For less than 1 year 32,540
For 1 year or more 10,640
Confiscation of property 4 78 3
Fines 141,464 2,021 3,037 16,939 718
Confinement in a fortress
Arrest 378 31 54 4
Arrest of juveniles in toto 37,717 37,717 134
namely: for a certain period in toto 25,562 25,562
of this, for more than 2 weeks 13,165 13,165
Total of weekend imprisonments 12,155 12,155
Of this, [those with] 2,866 2,866
3 and 4 pass privileges
 PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-715
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 112

THIRTEENTH REGULATION UNDER THE REICH CITIZENSHIP LAW, 1 JULY 1943[368]

1943 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 372

Under article 3 of the Reich Citizenship Law of 15 September 1935

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1146), the following is ordered:

Article 1
1. Criminal acts committed by Jews shall be punished by the police.
2. The decree concerning penal law for Poles
[Polenstrafrechtsverordnung] of 4 December 1941 [369] (Reichsgesetzblatt I,
p. 759) shall no longer apply to Jews.

Article 2
1. The property of a Jew shall be confiscated by the Reich after his
death.
2. The Reich may, however, grant compensation to the non-Jewish legal
heirs and persons entitled to sustenance who have their domicile in
Germany.
3. This compensation may be granted in the form of a lump sum, not to
exceed the ceiling price of the property which has passed into possession of
the German Reich.
4. Compensation may be granted by the transfer of titles and assets from
the confiscated property. No costs shall be imposed for the legal processes
necessary for such transfer.

Article 3
The Reich Minister of the Interior with the concurrence of the
participating supreme authorities of the Reich shall issue the legal and
administrative provisions for the administration and enforcement of this
regulation. In doing so he shall determine to what extent the provisions
shall apply to Jewish nationals of foreign countries.

Article 4
This regulation shall take effect on the seventh day of its promulgation.
In the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia it shall apply where German
administration and German courts have jurisdiction; article 2 shall also
apply to Jews who are citizens of the Protectorate.
Berlin, 1 July 1943
The Reich Minister of the Interior
F
Chief of the Party Chancellery
M. B
Reich Minister of Finance
C S K >
Reich Minister of Justice
D .T

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-151

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 204

SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPONDENCE PRECEDING ISSUANCE OF

THIRTEENTH REGULATION UNDER REICH CITIZENSHIP LAW, 3
AUGUST 1942–21 APRIL 1943, INVOLVING LIMITATIONS UPON LEGAL
RIGHTS OF JEWS, THEIR PUNISHMENT BY POLICE, AND RELATED
MATTERS[370]
1. Letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice to several leading Reich authorities, 3 August 1942

Direct Reich Chancery 10939 B

Reich Minister of Justice
III a-2 1637 42 1506/5
Carbon Copy
Berlin W 8, 3 August 1942
Urgent Letter
To the
a. Reich Minister of the Interior
b. Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police
c. Reich Minister for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda
d. Foreign Office
e. Chief of the Party Chancellery, Munich
f. Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia
Subject: Restriction of legal rights [Rechtsmittel][371] for Jews in criminal
cases
1 Enclosure
Enclosed I submit the draft for an ordinance concerning the restriction of
legal rights for Jews in criminal cases with the request to state your opinion
in regard to it.
I have emphasized the importance in war of this ordinance, because it
indirectly serves national defense. The dissatisfaction which is apparent in
wide circles of the German population with regard to the fact that legal
rights in criminal cases are still afforded to Jews and that they are still given
the right to appeal to the courts in cases of sentences inflicted by the police
is liable to weaken the determination of the German people to defend itself
in this contest which has been imposed on it.
As Deputy:
[typed] signed: D . F

2. Draft enclosed with the letter of the Reich Ministry of Justice of 3 August 1942

Copy
[Handwritten] 1508/05

Ordinance concerning the restriction of legal rights for Jews in criminal

cases
Of....................1942
 The Ministerial Council for the defense of the Reich decrees with force
of law:

Article 1
Jews are not entitled to make use of the right of appeal, revision (appeal
for nullification pursuant to the former Austrian law which has remained in
force), and complaint against decisions in criminal cases.
Jews cannot appeal to courts for a decision against sentences inflicted by
the police.
In cases where an appeal for legal rights has been filed already or a
decision by a court proposed at the time this ordinance is being enforced,
those are considered as cancelled.
Berlin,....................1942
The President of the Ministerial Council for
the Defense of the Reich,
[Handwritten] GFM [General-Feldmarshall]
Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

To IIIa-2 1637.42 344528

3. Letter from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the Reich Ministry of Justice, 13 August
1942

Reich Chancery 11452B 15 August 1942 [Initial] F [Ficker]

Reich Minister of the Interior
Berlin, 13 August 1942
NW 7, Unter den Linden 72
Telephone: 12 00 34
12 00 37

Ib 1200/42 1508/06
7035

Use this reference in your reply. Reference 15/8

 Urgent Letter
S.Ang. of 21/8
To the Reich Minister of Justice
Subject: Restriction of legal rights for Jews
Referring to your letter of 3 August 1942 RK. 11405 B im Gg. 1b-III-2
1637.42
The same considerations which have prompted your suggestion to deny
legal rights to Jews in criminal cases also apply to administrative matters. I
would like to ask you, therefore, to extend the draft of an ordinance
concerning the restriction of legal rights for Jews in criminal cases at the
same time also to administrative matters, giving it about the following
tenor:
Ordinance concerning the restriction of legal rights for Jews
Of....................1942.
The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich decrees with force
of law:

Article 1
Jews are not entitled to make use of the right of appeal in criminal or
administrative cases.
They cannot appeal, as is otherwise admissible, to the courts for a
decision against a decision taken.
Nor can they enter a protest which otherwise might be admissible.

Article 2
In cases where an appeal for legal rights or a protest has been filed
already they are considered as canceled.

Article 3
This ordinance is enforced 7 days after its announcement. It is valid also
in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Incorporated Eastern
Territories.
Berlin,....................1942
The President
of the Ministerial Council for the
Defense of the Reich
Delegate General for the Reich Administration
Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery
Copies to the supreme Reich authorities, except the Reich Minister of
Justice with the request to state their opinion by 21 August 1942, in case of
difference of opinion. Otherwise agreement will be assumed.
As deputy:
[signed] D . S

4. Letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice, signed by the defendant Schlegelberger, to the
Reich Ministry for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda, 13 August 1942

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice III a 2 1706.42 Copy

Berlin, 13 August 1942

[Handwritten] 1508/06
Urgent Letter
To the Reich Minister for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda
Berlin
Subject: Restriction of legal rights for Jews
Referring to urgent letter of 12 August 1942[372] R 1400/23.7.42/122/1.9.
I. I thought of meeting at first the most urgent need within the compass
of my sphere of activity, viz, that of adjusting the administration of justice
from a legal point of view, and moreover I had prepared a corresponding
draft for the other administration of justice belonging to my sphere of
activity. However, I did not want to take the initiative to make suggestions
concerning matters which are beyond the sphere of my department.
 The draft enclosed in your urgent letter includes all supreme authorities
of the Reich, especially that of the Reich Minister and all ministers whose
sphere of work is connected with matters of administrative law. While, as
far as the sphere of activity of these ministers is concerned I still adhere to
the opinion that I should refrain from making suggestions on my part, I
declare that I have no objections against an extension of my draft to matters
of administrative law and to decisions by administrative authorities.
II. 34529 114058
II. On the assumption that an extensive regulation of the situation of the
Jews with regard to legal and administrative decisions is desired, it seems
necessary to me that the question of the admissibility for a Jew to testify on
oath be legally regulated too, and this regulation had best be included in the
same decree.
Therefore, I furthermore suggest that the decree should provide that the
Jew is not admissible to testify on oath. Thereby the taking of an oath or the
furnishing of an affidavit by Jews is in general impossible.
In my opinion, however, the fact that the Jew is not permitted to take an
oath should not make the Jew have a better legal position than the person
who is authorized to take an oath. Therefore, I further suggest to include a
regulation according to which the testimony of a Jew which could have
been made under oath—if it had been given by a person who is permitted to
take an oath—should be treated like testimony given under oath as far as
criminal cases are concerned. My idea in this connection is that the chiefs
of the supreme authorities of the Reich should order administratively that it
should be pointed out to the Jew that he could be legally prosecuted if he
commits an offense against his duty to give true testimony, but I do not
propose to make this a prerequisite of being liable to punishment.
In my opinion, comprehensive settlement of the problem requires
furthermore the exclusion, for reasons of foreign policy, of all Jews from
the regulations of this decree who are citizens of a foreign nation.
Therefore, under the assumption that the persons participating in the
comprehensive solution of the problem and those supreme authorities of the
Reich which are in charge of specialized sectors agree, I would suggest to
give the following wording to the decree:
 Decree concerning the restriction of legal rights for Jews and their
inadmissibility to take an oath.
dated....................1942
The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich orders the
following to be enforced as a law:

Article 1
Jews are not entitled to lodge a plea for appeal, revision, and complaint
(nullity plea and appeal under the still valid parts of Austrian law) against
the decisions of the courts.
Jews cannot apply for a judicial decision against penal measures inflicted
by the police.

Article 2
Jews cannot make use of the legal rights provided against decisions
made by the administrative authorities.

Article 3
Insofar as legal right has already been exercised or an application for
legal decision has been requested when this law comes into effect, they are
considered to be withdrawn.

Article 4
Jews are not entitled to take an oath.

Article 5
The regulation concerning perjury and false oath applies to untrue
statements of Jews not made under oath, if a person entitled to take an oath
could have been sworn to this statement. In the same manner the regulations
concerning the making of a false declaration in lieu of oath are to be applied
to the untrue declaration of a Jew, if the declaration was the substitute for a
declaration in lieu of oath or a statement with reference to such a
declaration.

Article 6
The regulations do not apply to Jews who are citizens of a foreign
nation.

Article 7
The supreme authorities of the Reich are authorized to issue regulations
for the execution within their jurisdiction.
[Typed] signed: D . S
344531

5. Letter from Reich Leader SS to Lammers, 25 August 1942

13/9 RK. 12020 B 27 August 1942 [Initial] F [Ficker]

The Reich Leader SS
and
Chief of the German Police
in the Reich Ministry of the Interior
20/9
S IV B 4 b—Ref. No. 1268/42
Please quote above reference and date in reply.
[Handwritten] Submitted last to RM 11853 tz 1b
Berlin SW 11, 25 August 1942
Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse 8
Tel. 12 00 40
1508/7
Urgent Letter
To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

Berlin [Initial] L [Lammers] 30 August

Subject: Limitation of legal rights for Jews
Reference: Urgent letter of the Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment
and Propaganda sent to you on 21 August 1942—R
1400/13 August 1942, 122—1,9.
Considering the fact that up to now, the competent authorities disagree
and that moreover a number of further questions must be regarded as not
clarified, I consider the suggestions which have been made up to now as not
yet arrived at a stage when they could be submitted to the Ministerial
Council for the Defense of the Reich, and for this reason I have asked the
Reich Minister of Justice to arrange for a discussion for the clarification of
these essential questions.
B :
[Typed] Signed: S
Certified:
[Illegible signature]
Employee of the Chancery
Resubmitted because of RM 11850 (marked red), Office 13/19
[Stamp]
The Reich Leader SS
and Chief of the German Police
[Initial] F [Frick] Sept. 12

6. Letter from Martin Bormann to the Reich Ministry of Justice, 9 September 1942

National Socialist German Labor Party

Party Chancellery
The Chief of the Party Chancellery
Fuehrer Headquarters
9 September 1942.
III C-Do. 2425/0/1

Copy
To the Minister of Justice
Berlin W 8
Wilhelmstr. 65
Subject: Limitation of legal appeal for Jews. RM 11405 B
Reference: Your letter of 13 August 1942—III a 2 1706.42—.
The limitation for legal appeal for Jews proposed by you extends in the
sphere of court decisions only to the legal appeal in a limited sense—that is
to say to appeal, revision, and complaint. This regulation does not represent
a comprehensive solution of the problem, since the Jews will still be given
the possibility of making use of legal aids [Rechtsbehelfen] in a wider
sense.
The considerations which are decisive for your draft also apply to almost
all cases of “legal aids.” In criminal cases this applies above all to
objections against penal rulings and to pleas for resumption of proceedings.
In the sphere of civil law it would apply, e.g., to reminders of cost and
execution matters, objections to execution orders and judgments by default,
as well as to nullity and restitutions suits.
Also, a limitation of the admissibility of suits protesting against
executions and suits filed by a third party will have to be taken into
consideration, as in these cases, too, the result will be a legal aid against a
judicial decision. I think it necessary to include all those cases too into the
regulation.
I further request you to include into the draft a regulation declaring
inadmissible the declining of a judge by a Jew.
I have no objections against the provisions of the draft relative to the
disqualification of Jews to take an oath.
Heil Hitler!
[Typed] Signed: M. B
Certified copy:
[Signed] D
7. Letter from the General Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich to a number of
leading Reich authorities, 29 September 1942

Copy

RK. 136 2 B 29 Sept. 1942 [Initial] F [Ficker]

The General Plenipotentiary
for the Administration of the Reich
GBV. 788/42
2425
[Handwritten] Last submitted RK 12853 B
Berlin, 29 September 1942
[Stamp] See document of 8.10.
Urgent Letter
To the:
Head of the Party Chancellery
The Reich Minister of Justice
The Reich Minister for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda
The Foreign Office
The Reich Minister of Finance

[Handwritten] Submitted with RK 442 B. attached October 2

Subject: Ordinance concerning legal restrictions to be imposed on Jews
On the basis of a discussion of 25 September 1942 between the officials
in charge, a new draft of an ordinance concerning the restrictions imposed
on Jews in the proceedings before the administrative agencies or courts has
been drawn up under the title, “Ordinance concerning Legal Restrictions to
be Imposed on Jews.” Please let me know as soon as possible your opinion
about the enclosed new formulation.
If no reply has been received by 14 October, your consent will be taken
for granted.
This copy is forwarded for your information and with the request that
you take a decision by 14 October.
As deputy:
 [Signed] Stuckart
Justice 1
To the other supreme Reich authorities

8. Draft of proposed decree enclosed with the letter of the General Plenipotentiary for Reich
Administration of 25 September 1942

Appendix to GBV 788/42—2425 25 September 1942

Draft of an Ordinance concerning Legal Restrictions to be imposed on
Jews of..............1942.
The Council of the Ministers for Reich Defense ordains with the force of
law:

Article 1
(1) Jews will have no right of appeal [Rechtsmittel] from the decisions of
administrative agencies and courts, nor other legal means [Rechtsbehelfen]
to attack the same. Should, at the time when the present ordinance takes
effect, an appeal already be lodged, it will be treated as withdrawn.
(2) Other applications from Jews to the administrative agencies or courts
are admissible only insofar as the administrative agency or court would be
of the opinion that the consideration of the application would be in the
common interest.

Article 2
Jews cannot testify under oath.

Article 3
(1) The regulations concerning perjury apply to the untrue, unsworn
testimony of a Jew when the testimony could have been sworn to if it had
been made by a person capable of taking an oath.
(2) Similarly, the provisions concerning false assurances in lieu of
affidavits apply to a statement made by a Jew, if such a statement was
intended to replace an assurance in lieu of affidavit, or a deposition made
with reference to such an assurance.
(3) The Jew shall be warned that any such untrue deposition or false
statement will be punished according to those provisions.

Article 4
Statements of a Jewish party to the proceedings with respect to the
question whether a witness or expert should be put on oath, will be
disregarded.

Article 5
In the sentencing of Jews the provisions concerning the deprivation of
civil rights will not apply.

Article 6
Jews cannot challenge German judges on grounds of partiality.

Article 7
At the death of a Jew his fortune escheats to the Reich.

Article 8
The Reich Minister of the Interior in agreement with the supreme Reich
authorities in interest will issue the necessary legal and administrative
provisions for the implementation and amendment of the present ordinance.
He will hereby determine how far this ordinance is to apply to Jews of
foreign nationality.

Article 9
This ordinance will take effect on the seventh day after its promulgation.
It also will apply in the Incorporated Eastern Territories. In the Protectorate
of Bohemia and Moravia it will apply within the limits of the German
administration and the German jurisdiction.
 Berlin
The President of the Council of
Ministers for Reich Defense
The Plenipotentiary General
for Reich Administration
The Reich Minister and Chief of
the Reich Chancellery

9. Letter from the General Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration to the Reich Chancellery,
3 April 1943

The General Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration

GBV 262/43 1508/10
2425
[Handwritten notes] RK 4482 E
RK 13672B 52 M
2 Enclosures
Berlin, 3 April 1943
To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery for Under
Secretary Kritzinger
Subject: Ordinance concerning legal restrictions to be imposed on Jews
With reference to today’s conference between Under Secretary
Kritzinger and Under Secretary Dr. Stuckart, I am forwarding herewith in
duplicate—
(1) the draft of the ordinance concerning the legal restrictions to be
imposed on the Jews.
(2) the copy of the letter of the Chief of the Security Police and SD of 8
March 1943 (II A 2 No. 22 III/43 176—).[373]
B :
[Signature illegible]
Justice 1
344545
10. Letter from Kaltenbrunner, Chief of the Security Police and the SD, to Frick, 8 March 1943

The Chief of the Security Police and the SD Copy

II A 2 No. 22 III/43-176
Berlin SW 11, 8 March 1943
Prinz Albrecht-Strasse 8

Urgent letter
To the Reich Minister of the Interior,
Party member Dr. Frick
Berlin NW 7
Unter den Linden 72
My dear Reich Minister:
Upon request I have been informed by Department I that you have
stopped the passing of the ordinance concerning the legal restrictions to be
imposed on Jews, as in view of the development of the Jewish question, you
no longer consider this ordinance necessary.[374] May I therefore point out
the following views taken by the Security Police, which are in favor of an
immediate passing of the ordinance:
1. Previous evacuations of Jews have been restricted to Jews who were
not married to non-Jews. In consequence, the numbers of Jews who have
remained in the interior is quite considerable. As the ordinance would also
include these Jews as well, the measures it plans are not objectless.
2. The provision of article 7 of the ordinance according to which at the
death of a Jew his fortune escheats in its entirety to the Reich results in the
accumulation of considerably less work for the State Police. At the present
time the procedure used by the State Police in handling the confiscation of
such Jewish inheritances must frequently be modified to suit each special
case. If the decree were decided on these separate procedures would no
longer need to be carried out. The ordinance would therefore bring about an
effective reduction in present administrative activity.
3. The provision according to which the application of criminal law
against Jews is transferred from the judicial authorities to the police, is
based on an agreement between the Reich Leader SS and the Reich
Minister of Justice Dr. Thierack. This agreement has been approved by the
Fuehrer. For if it is to be put into practice it must be embodied in the form
of a law, as the present competence of justice, which is based on criminal
procedure, can only be modified by a legal provision.
If the ordinance which is planned does not come into force, this
provision as it is planned must then be set down in an independent law
which, however, is undesirable.
I beg you to consider the above-mentioned views and to examine
whether in spite of them an immediate passing of the ordinance does not
seem indicated.
Heil Hitler!
Yours obediently,
[Typed] signed: D . K
344547

11. Note of the Reich Chancellery, 6 April 1943, 1508/11

(14./4.) To RK. 13672 B, 4482 E

Fuehrer Headquarters
6 April 1943
[Handwritten] 1508/11
1. Note—Under Secretary Stuckart asked me over the telephone to
obtain the opinion of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery
as to the draft of the ordinance which had been sent him with the
accompanying letter of 3 April. As Under Secretary Stuckart informed me,
the Reich Minister of the Interior himself has his doubts as to whether the
ordinance is still necessary. When Stuckart approached the Party
Chancellery on the question, Reichsleiter Bormann suggested that he should
obtain the opinion of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery.
On 5 April I discussed the affair with Under Secretary Klopfer. The latter
is of the same opinion as myself, that with the exception perhaps of articles