Grant, DJ:—It is my conclusion that the decision of Chairman Fianigan of the Tax Review Board herein is correct. Besides the matters referred to in his judgment, the following evidence lends weight to his decision. Exhibit 6 is a memorandum made by
Martin, JA:—The Attorney General of Canada applies for leave to appeal and, if leave be granted, appeals from the decision of Mr Justice Labrosse, dismissing an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada by way of stated case from an order of
Maguire, DJ:—The plaintiff has appealed from the decision of the chairman of the Tax Review Board, holding that the gain obtained by the defendant on the sale of certain lands was not income to the defendant subject to the income tax levy
Urie, J:—For the reasons set forth in Appeal No A-363-75, Atinco Paper Products Limited v Her Majesty the Queen, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Urie, J:—For the reasons set forth in Appeal No A-363-75, Atinco Paper Products Limited v Her Majesty the Queen, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Marceau, J:—During his 1974 taxation year, the defendant taxpayer received a $10,000 award from the MacMillan Trust for his achievements in agriculture. The issue in this action is whether or not this award was “an amount received by him as or on
Addy, J:—Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 477, motions were made by counsel acting for the taxpayers in each of the above seven related appeals for an order authorizing the issue of a Commission for the examination of one John Christopher Doyle at
Décary, J:—The issue is to determine if outlays were made or expenses incurred for the purpose of gaining income from property when the defendant, in order to secure Domtar Limited as tenant, agreed to indemnify and exonerate Domtar Limited up to
Mahoney, J:—This action results from the plaintiff’s disallowance of the defendant’s claim of $207,500 “goodwill” as property, namely a leasehold interest, for purposes of capital cost allowance under paragraph 11 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act
Urie, J:—This is one of three appeals from judgments of the Trial Division argued together in this Court since it was agreed by all parties that the issues were identical in each. The trials were on common evidence and the reasons for
