Teskey T.C.J. (orally):

HIS HONOUR: The Appellant appeals an assessment of income tax for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. In his Notice of Appeal he elected the Informal Procedure.

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.

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

This is an appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) pursuant to s. 160 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”).

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”).

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

The Appellant is appealing the reassessments of income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) for the taxation years 1991 to 1994.

Bowie T.C.J.:

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:

Brulé T.C.J.:

The Appellant is appealing amounts imposed by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) to her income received by way of tips in the restaurant in which she worked.

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.

Beaubier T.C.J. .

This matter was heard in Castlegar, British Columbia on the 11th day of June, 1998.

The Appellant called Helen DeWeever, a professional physiotherapist, Darlene Espenhaim, CGA, and the Appellant herself.