Biderman v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2144, 98 DTC 2188 -- text

McArthur T.C.J.:

These appeals concerning the Appellants’ assessments, dated July 19, 1995, were heard on common evidence. The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) assessed the Appellants $74,723[1] in respect of a Transfer of Property to them by their father, Michael B. Biderman, within the meaning of section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). It is not in dispute that at all material times Michael B. Biderman was indebted to Revenue Canada and had been since 1989.

Barker v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2137 -- text

Beaubier T.C.J.:

This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Cranbrook, British Columbia on June 9, 1998. The Appellant was called to give testimony by counsel for the Queen. George William Barker was called to give testimony by Marlene Barker’s agent. Mr. Barker was joined into the appeal of Marlene Barker by an Order under section 174 of the Income Tax Act.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:

Turner v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2122, 99 DTC 13 -- text

O^Connor T.C.J.:

This appeal was heard at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories on August 4, 1998. The Appellant represented himself and he was the only witness.

The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to an allowable business investment loss in the 1994 year pursuant to section 50 of the Income Tax Act (“Act’).

I find the principal facts to be as follows:

1. The Appellant was the principal owner of Turn-Air Ltd. (“Turn- Air”);

Lebel v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 2061 -- text

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.

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS