Tremblay T.C.J.:
This appeal was heard on November 12, 1997, at Montréal, Quebec.
According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether the appellant is correct in maintaining that she is not jointly and severally liable for $2,669.11 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) in respect of her spouse’s liability.
Archambault 7.C.J.:
Ms. Patricia Corbett is appealing an income tax assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect to the 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The Minister disallowed the deduction of « additional volun- tary contributions » made by Ms. Corbett to her pension plan in 1994 and 1995.
The Minister claims that those contributions were not made in accor- dance with the current legislation governing her pension plan.
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
This is an appeal under the informal procedure from a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) for the 1995 taxation year.
The issue is whether the appellant was entitled to deduct $6,110 in child care expenses under section 63 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) even though her earned income exceeded her spouse’s and none of the circum- stances described in subparagraphs 63(2)(b)(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Act applied to her spouse.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
Judgment in this matter was signed on August 24, 1998 allowing the appeal and awarding the Appellant party and party costs. On October 1, 1998 solicitors for the Appellant applied for an extra $300 in costs over and above the party and party tariff. The reasons were stated to be:
Dussault T.C.J.:
Mr. Boyer, I must unfortunately dismiss your appeal essentially for the reasons argued by Mr. Ayadi.
According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Ap- peal the question is whether the sum of $4,272 paid in 1995 to a Chinese institution, namely the Nanchang Social Welfare Institute of Jiangxi, for the care of the child Daphné, can be regarded as child care expenses.
The issues are:
Rip T.C.J.:
Keith James Betteridge, the appellant, appeals from an income tax assessment for 1993 that denied him an overseas employment tax credit ("OETC") on the basis that he was not employed by a specified employer carrying on business activities outside Canada as required by the provisions of subsection 122.3(1) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”).
Tremblay T.C.J.-.
The following facts support the application for an extension of time. These facts were essentially confirmed by the testimony of Gilles Roberge, an accountant, André Therrien, the appellant’s principal shareholder, and Claude Charpentier, an appeals officer from the respondent’s Sherbrooke office. They read as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
(1) On November 18, 1996 a notice confirming the assessments made for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years was sent to the appellant;
Christie A.C.J. T .C.:
This appeal is governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Bonner 17.C.J.:
