Keenan v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2682 -- text

Teskey T.C.J.:

The Appellant in her Notice of Appeal wherein she appealed her assessment of income tax for the years 1993 and 1994, elected the informal procedure.

The Issue

The sole issue before me is whether the sum of $20,812 and $54,018 received in 1993 and 1994, respectively, was on capital account or income account.

Facts

The Appellant, a 55 year old married woman, the mother of seven children, describes herself as a sales representative.

Richard v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2671 -- text

Tremblay T.C.J.:

Point at issue

According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal the question is whether, in calculating his income for the 1986 taxation year, the appellant is entitled to deduct $3,191 as fees paid to investment counsel pursuant to s. 20(1)(bb) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”).

Decae v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2636 -- text

Beaubier T.C.J. (orally):

His Honour: And the Appellant is present in person. Put that on the record, please. This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on June 29 and 30, 1998. The Appellant testified. The Respondent called three employees of Revenue Canada: Barry McKenzie, Sheila Nixon and Gilbert Hertlein.

Paragraphs 7 to 10 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:

Browatzke v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2615 -- text

Beaubier T.C.J.:

This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Edmonton, Alberta on August 13, 1998. The Appellant testified as did Daniel Service, the auditor.

The particulars of the assessment appealed are set out in paragraphs 2 and 5 to 8, inclusive, of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. They read:

2. He denies that the Appellant was not an employee of Fleming Powerline Construction Ltd (the “Employer”) as stated in the second unnumbered paragraph in the Notice of Appeal.

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS