Bowman T . C.]. :

This appeal is from reassessment for the 1995 taxation year whereby the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the sum of $12,000 claimed by the appellant as alimony or maintenance paid to his estranged spouse under paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant and his spouse had a history of matrimonial difficulties. They have separated and attempted reconciliation on at least two occasions. They are now in the process of obtaining a divorce.

McArthur T.C.J.:

Bell T.C.J.:

The Applicant made a motion seeking an Order pursuant to subsection 93(3) or 93(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (“Rules”) directing the Respondent to make Mr. Donald Frattaroli ("Frat- taroli”), or in the alternative, Mr. Robert L. Coker (“Coker”) available to be examined on behalf of the Respondent at an examination for discovery.

Rule 93(3) and (4) read as follows:

Porter D.J.T.C.:

The Appellant received notices of reassessment dated March 14, 1996 relating to the taxation years 1992 and 1993, with respect to travel expenses she had claimed against her employment income, as a school psychologist with the Calgary Board of Education (“C.B.E.”).

Somers D.J.T.C.:

This is an appeal pursuant to the informal procedure for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The issue is whether the expenses claimed were incurred by the Appellant or, if incurred, were for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business or property.

In reassessing the Appellant, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") made the following assumptions of facts which were admitted, denied or ignored by the Appellant:

Tremblay T.C.J.:

This appeal was heard on November 12, 1997, at Montréal, Quebec.

Issue (L2/R5194/T0/BT0) test_linespace (274>256.00) 1.023 0771_1951_2081

According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the issue is whether the appellant is correct in maintaining that she is not jointly and severally liable for $2,669.11 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) in respect of her spouse’s liability.

Archambault 7.C.J.:

Ms. Patricia Corbett is appealing an income tax assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect to the 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The Minister disallowed the deduction of « additional volun- tary contributions » made by Ms. Corbett to her pension plan in 1994 and 1995.

The Minister claims that those contributions were not made in accor- dance with the current legislation governing her pension plan.

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

This is an appeal under the informal procedure from a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) for the 1995 taxation year.

The issue is whether the appellant was entitled to deduct $6,110 in child care expenses under section 63 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) even though her earned income exceeded her spouse’s and none of the circum- stances described in subparagraphs 63(2)(b)(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Act applied to her spouse.

Beaubier T.C.J.:

Judgment in this matter was signed on August 24, 1998 allowing the appeal and awarding the Appellant party and party costs. On October 1, 1998 solicitors for the Appellant applied for an extra $300 in costs over and above the party and party tariff. The reasons were stated to be:

Dussault T.C.J.:

Application of section 122.3 - Deduction from tax payable where (L6/R8/T0/BT0) test_left_indentation (1) 1.047 0757_6275_6455

employment out of Canada (L250/R3172/T1/BT1) test_marked_paragraph_end (3164) 1.023 0757_6499_6663

Mr. Boyer, I must unfortunately dismiss your appeal essentially for the reasons argued by Mr. Ayadi.