Tardif T.C.J.:
These appeals are from notices of reassessment for the 1990 and 1991 taxation years. The appellant, a CEGEP teacher, took courses at the same time that she was a teacher and obtained a master’s degree in 1983.
When she completed her new training, a number of friends and colleagues encouraged her to make her services and skills in relaxation and visualization available. She followed that advice.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
McArthur T.C.J.:
This appeal is from a reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 1990 taxation year. Essentially two issues are raised:
a) Was the Minister of National Revenue correct in adding the sum of $403,103.85 to the Appellant’s taxable income for the 1990 taxation year following a “net worth” assessment?
b) Was the Minister justified in assessing penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act?
Sarchuk T.C.J.:
This is an appeal by Gordon Collins (the Appellant) from an assessment of tax with respect to his 1992 taxation year. In computing his income for that year, the Appellant claimed $7,479.27 as a business investment loss. That amount was subsequently revised to $8,983.06 as set out in Schedule A to the Reply to the Notice of Appeal of the Minister of National Revenue.
Bonner T.C.J.:
McArthur T.C.J.:
Teskey T.C.J. (orally):
HIS HONOUR: In this appeal the issue is what is the proper income and the proper expenses for a series of rental properties and what are the proper expenses on the Guaranteed Immigration Service business of the appellant.
The parties agreed as to the items that were in dispute under the sole proprietorship of Guaranteed Immigration Services and an order will go reflecting that agreement.
Bowman T.C.J.:
I will render my judgment now.
This is one of the long line of cases involving the assertion the taxpayer did not have a “reasonable expectation of profit”.
What it really boils down to is, as I have said in other cases, is this a business or does it have the normal indicia of commerciality.
Teskey T.C.J.:
The Appellant appeals an assessment issued pursuant to subsection 159(3) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act’) for $88,880.59 in respect of distribution of the said amount from the estate of the late Herman Brock Armstrong, (the “deceased”), without first obtaining a clearance certificate from the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) pursuant to subsection 159(2).
The issue before me is whether the Appellant can challenge the deceased’s assessment of income tax.
Dussault T.C.J.:
The appellant is challenging an assessment in the amount of $25,278.60 made pursuant to s. 160 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”), notice of which is dated December 21, 1995.
