O’Connor T C.J.:
These appeals were heard on common evidence at Calgary, Alberta on April 21, 22 and 23, 1998.
Several witnesses were heard and copious exhibits were filed.
There are three issues, namely:
1. Whether an alleged management fee of $190,000 paid or accrued by Airtex Industries Ltd. (“Airtex”) to its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Airtex Inc. in the 1989 taxation year was deductible.
Hamlyn T.C.J.:
These appeals are for the Appellant’s 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years.
In computing his income for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years, the Appellant deducted carrying charges and interest expenses in the amounts of $10,711.00, $9,862.73 and $9,803.03, respectively.
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
These are appeals by way of the informal procedure concerning the 1994 and 1995 taxation years.
The question at issue is whether the Appellant, in application of paragraph 11 8(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (the "Ac"), is entitled to a tax credit for a wholly dependent person, his eldest daughter, where he was also entitled to a deduction under paragraph 60(b) of the Act, in respect of alimony payments made to his former wife for the maintenance of his children.
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
Margeson T.C.J.:
By Notices of Reassessment dated August 10, 1993 and August 11, 1995, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed the Appellant for the 1986 to 1991 taxation years, inclusively, for tax and imposed penalties and interest.
Bowman T.C.J.:
These appeals are from assessments for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years made against the late Mr. Hausmann whereby the Minister of National Revenue included in his income a pension received from the Government of Belgium in the amounts of $4,800, $4,761 and $5,217 respectively. It appears the amounts were received in Belgian francs. The assessments were based upon clause 56( 1 )(a)(i)(C. 1 ) of the Income Tax Act which reads:
O^Connor T.C.J.:
These appeals were heard at Toronto, Ontario on April 9, 1998 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court. The Appellant was the only person to give evidence.
The issue is whether the Appellant was entitled in the years 1991 through 1994 to deduct certain rental losses with respect to her home in Oshawa, Ontario.
I find the basic facts to be as follows.
Mogan T.C.J.:
When computing income for her 1995 taxation year, the Appellant deducted certain child care expenses under subsection 63(1) of the Income Tax Act. Upon reassessment, her deduction was disallowed because she did not have receipts from the person who provided the child care. The Appellant has appealed from the disallowance of her deduction and I am required to apply subsection 63(1) to the facts of this case.
Archambault T.C.J.:
Mr. George Desnomie is appealing a reassessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect to the 1989 taxation year. Mr. Desnomie, an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-5, claimed an exemption pursuant to paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (Act) and pursuant to sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act.
Sarchuk T.C.J.:
These are the appeals of John G. Caraberis and Bonnie Bond (the Appellants) from assessments of tax with respect to their 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years. By agreement of all parties, the appeals were heard together on common evidence. Four separate issues were raised and with respect thereto, the parties filed an agreed statement of facts. Further testimony was adduced on behalf of the Appellants from Caraberis, Stephen
