Strayer
J.:
—
The
attached
reasons
delivered
in
Sokolowska
v.
R.
(Doc.
A-633-95)
also
constitute
the
reasons
of
the
Court
in
this
appeal.
This
appeal
was
heard
together
with
the
appeal
of
Sokolowska
v.
R.,
(June
13,
1996),
Doc.
A-632-95
(Fed.
C.A.).
A
copy
of
these
reasons
will
be
filed
in
that
appeal
and
will
form
the
reasons
in
that
appeal
as
well.
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge
erred
in
law
in
not
making
a
finding
as
to
the
respective
shares
of
beneficial
ownership
in
the
mortgages
attributable
to
each
of
the
two
taxpayers
Henry
Sokolowski
and
Elwira
Sokolowska,
and
in
not
directing
reassessment
of
their
respective
shares
of
both
carrying
charges
and
of
capital
gains
accordingly.
The
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
should
therefore
be
set
aside
and
the
matter
remitted
to
the
same
Tax
Court
judge
for
determination
on
the
existing
record
and
any
further
relevant
evidence
the
parties
may
adduce
as
to
the
respective
shares
of
beneficial
ownership
attributable
to
Henry
Sokolowski
and
Elwira
Sokolowska
in
the
mortgages
in
question
in
the
taxation
years
1990,
1991
and
1992.
In
doing
so
he
must
have
regard
to
the
need
for
the
taxpayers
to
prove
that
the
beneficial
ownership
(and
not
just
the
source
of
investment
funds)
was
divided
in
some
way
other
than
the
equal
division
assumed
by
the
Minister,
which
was
based
in
part
on
the
taxpayers’
own
business
loss
claims
in
respect
of
these
mortgages
in
the
taxation
year
1989.
The
learned
judge
should
then
make
such
order
as
is
consistent
with
this
determination,
including
confirmation
of
the
concessions
already
made
by
the
Minister
and
referred
to
in
his
previous
judgment.
Notwithstanding
the
arguments
on
behalf
of
the
applicants,
we
are
all
satisfied
from
the
record
that
there
could
be
no
reasonable
apprehension
of
bias
in
respect
of
the
conduct
of
the
appeal
by
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge.
Appeals
allowed.
Email this Content