Algonquin Enterprises LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2617, 79 DTC 548 -- text

M J Bonner:—This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the appellant’s 1971, 1972 and 1973 taxation years. The assessments in issue are described in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed by the parties at the hearing. It read as follows:

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dartmouth Developments LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2611, 79 DTC 545 -- text

M J Bonner:—This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the appellant’s 1970 to 1973 taxation years inclusive. By these assessments the respondent treated as income amounts described as net revenue from the sales of certain residential building lots. The sales

Hidrogas Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2605, 79 DTC 555 -- text

M J Bonner:—The appellant, in its return of income for the taxation year ending August 31, 1974, sought to deduct in computing income Canadian development expenses in the amount of $191,116 and Canadian exploration expenses in the amount of

Douglas G Barrett v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2597, 79 DTC 567 -- text

The Assistant Chairman:—With his 1976 income tax return, the appellant filed a T-4 slip from each of his two employers in that year, which slips totalled $32,105,83. From this amount he deducted an amount of $8,000, that he classified as a

Evan Wesley George Bodrug v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2593, 79 DTC 551 -- text

M J Bonner:—The appellant has been assessed to tax on capital gains realized on the sale, in 1972 and 1973, of shares of Canadian Hidrogas Resources Ltd (hereinafter called “the company’’). The company was a public company, the shares of which

Hubert Laurin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] CTC 2577 -- text

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—The case at bar was heard jointly with the cases of Jean-Pierre Laurin (77-1289), Jean-Guy Laurin (77-1288) and Laurent Laurin (78-63) in Montreal, Quebec on May 17, 1978.

The reasons for judgment given in the case of Jean-Pierre Laurin apply mutatis mutandis to the case at bar.

Conclusion

The appeal is allowed in part and the whole is referred back to the respondent for reassessment in accordance with the above-mentioned reasons for judgment.

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS