Bowie T.C.J.:
By agreement of the parties, the appeals of these 15 Appellants were heard together on common evidence. The appeals are from assessments for income tax for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.1.[1] The description of the facts which follows is as they existed during the years under appeal. Some of these facts have changed since 1989, but to the extent that they have, it is not relevant to the disposition of the appeals.
Tremblay T.C.J.:
According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether, given the fact that the appellant went bankrupt on July 2, 1996, where he and his former spouse Sylvie Tremblay had joint custody (as of April 1995) of their two children, Sabrina and Nicolas:
(1) he has the capacity to be a party to an action;
(2) the Court can hear the appeal;
Somers D.J.T.C.:
This appeal was heard in Pembroke, Ontario, on July 13, 1998, pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court concerning the Appellant’s 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years.
The issues are whether:
(a) the Appellant was entitled to receive child tax benefit (CTB) in respect of more than one “qualified dependant” for the months of February 1993 to June 1993 of the 1992/1993 benefit years and for the months of July 1993 to December 1993 of the 1993/1994 benefit years; and
Garon T.C.J.:
This is an appeal from an assessment dated September 9, 1994 made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to s. 160 of the Income Tax Act.
According to the Minister of National Revenue the obligation to pay the sum of $78,557.51, imposed by that assessment, resulted from the transfer by Robert Obadia to the appellant on or about April 5, 1993 of 25,484 shares in the capital stock of Air Canada and 5,000 shares in the capital stock of Sportscene Restaurant Inc.
Bowman T.C.J.:
These appeals are from assessments for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.
There are two issues:
(a) the deductibility of legal expenses incurred by the appellant in 1993, 1994 and 1995;
(b) the deductibility of certain business expenses claimed by the appellant in 1991 and 1992.
The appellant in the years in question was a self-employed associate with Financial Concept Group.
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 is the building of a wood frame Spitfire replica.
