Bowman T.C.J. (orally):

I am very sorry. I have to dismiss this appeal. The reason I am dismissing it is that the appellant is not entitled to the equivalent to married status or credit under 118( 1 )(b) for two reasons: It has not been established that his son was wholly dependent upon him for support, and in any event, the son was not disabled and was not under 18 years of age, so that the conditions set out in paragraph 118(1)(b) have not been met. I dismiss the appeal.

Thank you very much, sir.

McArthur T.C.J. (orally):

THE REGISTRAR: This sitting of the Tax Court of Canada in London is resumed. His Honour Judge C. H. McArthur presiding.

Before the Court for judgment case No. 97-2930 (IT) I Matchwood Investments Ltd., Appellant, and Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent. No one appearing for the Appellant, Ms. N. Levasseur representing the Respondent.

Rowe D.J.T.C.:

Bowman T.C.J.:

This appeal is from an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act. By that assessment the Minister of National Revenue assessed the appellant in the amount of $72,923.61 on the basis that on July 9, 1990 the appellant’s spouse, Paula Wainberg, transferred to him for $1.00 her 50% ownership of the matrimonial home at a time when she owed tax for 1986 and 1988 in the amount of $73,187.77. The amount of Paula Wainberg’s tax liability is not disputed.

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

These appeals are in respect of the Appellant’s 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years.

The Project

The project is the building of a wood frame Spitfire replica.

Somers D.J.T.C.:

This appeal was heard in Renfrew, Ontario, on July 13, 1998, pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court, concerning the Appellant’s 1994 taxation year.

The issue in this case is whether the Appellant is entitled to an amount for mental or physical impairment pursuant to section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in the computation of his non-refundable tax credits and tax payable for the 1994 taxation year.

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

This is an appeal pursuant to the informal procedure from an assessment bearing No. 09033, dated July 4, 1996, made under s. 227(10) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) concerning an amount payable by the appellant under s. 227.1 of the Act. That section provides that directors of a corporation which has failed to remit source deductions made on the salaries of the corporation employees shall be jointly and severally liable.

Brulé T.C.J.:

This is an appeal for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years in which the Appellant claimed certain business expenses which were disallowed by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and an amount of added unreported income was included in the reassessment.

Watson D.J.T.C.:

The Minister’s motion, requesting a dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that no Notice of Objection was served for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years, was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 22, 1998.

Bell T.C.J.:

Issues:

The issues in this appeal, as stated in the Notice of Appeal and Reply to the Notice of Appeal are:

(a) whether the Appellant had a reasonable expectation of profit from certain activities carried on by him in the 1991 and 1992 taxation years, and

(b) whether the expenses incurred and claimed by the Appellant were incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business within the meaning of paragraph 18( 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act (‘'Act").