Addy, J:—The present case was called for trial before me at the same time as the case of The Minister of National Revenue v Murray Kadis, Court No T-1106-72. Both taxpayers are partners with an equal
Walsh, J:—This is an appeal against an assessment by defendant whereby the sum of $350,005.50 was added to plaintiff’s income for the taxation year 1965 as a benefit allegedly paid to him under the provisions of the Income Tax
Urie, J (concurred in by Ryan, J):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division in which the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s income tax assessments for the 1967 and 1968 taxation years was allowed and the assessments were set
The Chief Justice (orally, per curiam):—We do not need to hear you, Mr Matheson. We agree with the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Collier, J:—In the calculation of his income tax for 1971, the plaintiff sought to deduct from income the sum of $4,000* [1] as alimony payments made to his former wife. The plaintiff contends he is entitled to do so
Mahoney, J:—As a resuit of a consent to judgment filed herein July 25, 1975 there remain three issues to be dealt with in these reasons, namely the issues raised under the headings “Bituminous Sands Leases”, paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive; “Conjuring
Addy, J:—The issue in this case is the liability of the defendant for payment of excise tax as a manufacturer or a producer of aluminum foil. There is no question as to the amount due if liability is found to exist, the parties being agreed as
Cattanach, J:—The issue in these appeals from a decision of the Tax Review Board is whether the defendant is entitled to claim a reserve pursuant to paragraph 85B(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act for its 1969 and 1970 taxation years which
Mahoney, J:—The issue is the disallowance of the deduction by the defendant from its taxable income for its 1969 taxation year of $15,000 claimed as a bad debt. The defendant was successful in its contention before the Tax Review Board.
Addy, J:—Counsel for both parties were in agreement that the facts were not in dispute in any material respect but that the case would turn entirely on the interpretation to be given to those facts and on the conclusions of fact to be
