A W Prociuk (orally: January 16, 1978):—The appellant, Maarten Slingerland, appeals from the reassessments of his income by the respondent for the taxation years 1972, 1973 and 1974 wherein in each year the sum of $3,000 was added back to his
A W Prociuk (orally: February 7, 1978):—The appellant, Mrs Renata Grodski, of the City of Toronto, Ontario, appeals from the reassessment of her income by the respondent for the taxation year 1975, wherein the respondent disallowed the claim for
Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment for the year 1975 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed a deduction in the amount of $450 for child care expenses. The appellant, a man, contended that section
Delmer E Taylor (orally: February 18, 1977):—This is an appeal by Eddie Oswald against assessments of tax for the 1970, 1971 and 1972 taxation years.
Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This case was heard at Montreal on December 17, 1976 and January 20, 1977.
Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment for the year 1974 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $3,228.11 regarded by the taxpayer as an expenditure for the purpose of earning income. The
A W Prociuk:—The appellant, Stanley J Powell, of Calgary, Alberta, an employee of Shell Canada Ltd, appeals from the respondent’s reassessment of his income for the taxation year 1975 wherein an amount of $2,223.19 was added to his taxable income
A W Prociuk:—The appellant, Frank J Allan, appeals from the respondent’s reassessment of his income for the taxation years 1972 and 1973 wherein expenses in the sums of $6,491.82 for 1972 and $8,999.94 for 1973 were disallowed on the
Roland St-Onge (orally: June 14, 1977):—The appeal of Angus E Barton & Associates Limited came before me on June 14, 1977 at the City of Toronto, Ontario and it is with respect to the appellant’s 1973 and 1974 taxation years.
The Assistant Chairman:—Were is not for the Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44, this appeal would not have come before this Board. The basis of the appeal is that section 63 of the Income Tax
