O^Connor T.C.J.:
This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario on December 1, 1998.
The facts are set forth in a Statement of Agreed Facts (“Statement”) which reads as follows:
For the purposes of this appeal the parties agree to the following facts:
Dussault T.C.J.:
This appeal was heard in accordance with the informal procedure. It is an appeal from an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act”) the notice of which bears number 08995 and is dated December 15, 1995.
In making this assessment, the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) made the assumptions of fact stated in subparagraphs 3(a) to (o) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, inter alia. Those subparagraphs read as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
Dussault T.C.J.:
The appellant is challenging an assessment, notice of which was dated April 29, 1997, for tax on income from Canada of non-resident persons (Part XIII) for the 1996 taxation year.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
This Appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on November 26, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness. He has appealed the disallowance of some deductions relating to his pottery business in Hazlet, Saskatchewan in 1993 and 1994. They are detailed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Reply of Notice of Appeal.
By item the Court finds:
Mogan T. C.]. :
Tanasychuk T.O.:
This taxation came on for hearing on July 7, 1998, by means of a tele- phone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Bell dated July 8, 1997, in which the Respondent was awarded costs. The Appel- lant represented himself and Ms. Donna Dorosh represented the Respondent.
The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Respondent is as follows:
McArthur T.C.J.:
The Appellants’ appeal the assessments of revenue wherein the Minister of National Revenue determined they are liable to pay $24,648.33 pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the “Acf").
The Appellants owned all of the shares of Gambier Developments Ltd. (Gambier). The Minister determined that Gambier was liable in October
29-03-18
Bell T.C.J.:
The issues in this appeal are:
I. Whether mortgage debt of a partnership of which the Appellant was a member was extinguished in his 1989 taxation year. The Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) reassessed the Appellant for that year adding capital gain in the sum of $84,499 and adding recaptured capital cost allowance in the sum of $31,275; and
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
These appeals were heard on common evidence under the informal procedure. They concern the application of paragraph 8(1)() and subparagraph 8( 1 )(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act’) for the 1994 taxation year.
The issue is whether the appellants, in computing their employment income, can deduct the cost of purchasing the computers they acquired under their contracts of employment.
Beaubier T . C.J.:
This appeal pursuant to the informal procedure was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 6th, 1998. The Appellant testified, the Respondent called its auditor on the file, Robert Bidlake.
At the outset, the Appellant’s agent acknowledged liability for most of the assessments. As a result, two assessments remained in dispute between the parties. They are dealt with as follows:
