Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1274 -- text
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police v. Omar Ahmed Khadr -- text
Edwards v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2906 -- text
Bowie T.C.J.:
Maclsaac v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2902 -- text
Bowman T.C.J.:
This appeal is an appeal from an assessment for 1995 whereby the Minister of National Revenue denied the appellant’s claim for a disability tax credit under section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the appellant was not markedly restricted in her ability to perform a basic activity of daily living.
The basic activity of daily living, as defined in section 118.4, in which the appellant claims she is markedly restricted is walking.
Cabot v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2893 -- text
Rip T.C.J.:
Camp Kahquah Corp. v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2882 -- text
Bell T.C.J.:
This is an appeal from an Assessment for the period January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 made under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (“Act”) in respect of Goods and Services Tax. Sectional reference, unless otherwise specified, will be to this Act.
Issue
The issue is whether camp programs conducted by the Appellant are exempt supplies within the meaning of the term “exempt supply” as defined in section 123(1) of the Act.
Bata v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2879, 99 DTC 21 -- text
Beaubier T.C.J. (orally) .
THE REGISTRAR: APP-2-98-IT, between Steve Bata and Her Majesty The Queen. Mr. Bata present and counsel for the respondent is Ms. Johnston.
THE COURT: This application for an Order to extend the time in which the appellant may appeal, a confirmation of assessment was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, on August 27, 1998. The appellant and his lay accountant, Herb Ottenbreit, testified.
The pertinent dates are as follows:
Nach v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2873 -- text
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure provided for under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1992 and 1994.
The issue is whether with respect to those years the appellant is entitled to deduct his full farming losses in computing his income. The position of the respondent is that none of the losses are so deductible.
The Notice of Appeal reads:
O’connell v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2866 -- text
Rip T.C.J.:
The key issue in these appeals from assessments for 1994 and 1995 is whether an allowance contemplated by subparagraph 6(1)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) is received by an employee from the employee’s employer as a full reimbursement for actual expenses incurred for travel, as claimed by the appellant, or is paid by the employer to compensate the employee to some reasonable extent for travel, as claimed by the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) in making the assessments.
Pages
