Delmer E Taylor:—This appeal, heard in the City of Toronto, Ontario, on September 21, 1979, is against an income tax assessment for the year 1972 in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the taxable income of the appellant by an
Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—These cases were taken under advisement on November 22, 1978 based on the pleadings filed. They were heard on October 20, 1977.
The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:—This is an appeal by Services Farmico Inc against an income tax assessment dated May 5, 1976 for the taxation year 1974.
Delmer E Taylor [TRANSLATION]:—These appeals were heard on common evidence in the City of Montreal, Quebec, on April 11, 1979. They were filed against the penalties imposed in relation to the reassessments on Laurette Giroux, dated December 22, 2976,
Delmer E Taylor [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal was heard in Montreal, Quebec on April 10, 1979 and was brought as a consequence of assessments for 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 in which the Minister of National Revenue added various amounts to the
Delmer E Taylor [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal was heard at the City of Montreal, Quebec, on April 12, 1979, and was filed following income tax assessments for the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed
Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in the City of Toronto, Ontario, on September 20, 1979, against an income tax assessment in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $387,562 claimed by the taxpayer in filing his
Guy Tremblay:— This case was heard in Vancouver, BC, on February 21, 1979.
The point is whether the appellant is correct in claiming in the computation of his income for the 1976 taxation year the amounts of $3,318 for a life insurance premium and $1,312 for dental expenses for his children, as part of alimony payments as provided in the written separation agreement. The Department of National Revenue refuses those expenses because, according to its contention, they were not paid on a period basis.
M J Bonner:—On December 31, 1971, the appellants, William Robulak, Emily Vaselenak and Eunice Robulak, each owned an undivided one-third interest in an 80 acre parcel of land lying immediately to the south of the northerly limits of the City of
The Chairman:—The appeal of Dr Marshall Kulka is from an assessment by which the Minister added to the appellant’s income an amount of $20,960 for the 1977 taxation year. As I understand it, the issue is whether $20,000, received by the appellant
