McArthur T.C.J.:

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, with respect to the Appellant’s 1995 taxation year. The Minister of National Revenue included additional employment earnings of $4,903.00.

The issue is whether his employer, Sampan Roppongi Restaurant, withheld tax at source with respect to the additional earnings.

McArthur T.C.J.:

This appeal is from an assessment made under section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the “Acr’) concerning the Appellant’s 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years. The assessment is based upon alleged transfers by the Appellant’s husband, John Ferracuti, in the amount of $136,695.02 between February 15, 1990 and June 9, 1994. It is not disputed that Mr. Ferracuti was, during the years in question, obligated to pay not less than $393,380.00 under the Act during the relevant years.

Christie A.C.J.T.C.:

These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1992, 1993 and 1994.

At the commencement of the hearing of these appeals on October 2, 1998 the appellant raised two matters pertaining to limitation periods provided for in the Tax Court of Canada Act (“the Act’). The first was whether the Reply to the Notice of Appeal had been filed within the prescribed time.

P.R. Dussault T.C.J.:

The appellant is appealing an assessment made on July 4, 1994 in respect of his 1990 taxation year. By this assessment, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed, with respect to a gain which resulted from a sale of shares occurring in 1988 but a part of which was not declared until 1990 as a reserve claimed the preceding year, the capital gains deduction provided for under section 110.6 of the Income Tax Act (the "Ac").

Tanasychuk B., 7.0., T.C.C.:

This taxation came on for hearing on September 29, 1998, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Brulé dated December 15, 1997, in which he awarded the Respondent costs in the appeal, such to be determined on an application for costs. The Appellant represented himself at the hearing and at the taxation. Ms. Sandra Phillips represented the Respondent.

The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Respondent is as follows:

Teskey T.C.J. (orally):

HIS HONOUR: This appeal came on for hearing this 16th day of September.

The Respondent produced a motion to have the appeal dismissed as the Appellant in essence was not appealing the assessment of tax for the taxation year 1996. The Respondent asked to put the Appellant in the witness box, and the Appellant said, well I want to make a statement. A statement he gave, and it’s accepted, and therefore there is no need for him to be sworn and put formally in the box.

Bell T.C.J.:

The issue is whether Edward B. Duncan ("Duncan") was entitled to a deduction for motor vehicle travel expenses in respect of his 1995 taxation year and whether Mary J. Duncan (“Mary”) was entitled to such a deduction for her 1994 and 1995 taxation years. Although Edward filed a Notice of Appeal for his 1995 taxation year, he abandoned same at the hearing.

Bowman T. C.]. :

These appeals are from assessments for the 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 taxation years.

Essentially, the question is the computation of the appellant’s income for those years from carrying on a business of operating a number of sex boutiques in which various types of erotica are sold.

The appellant failed to file income tax returns for the years in question. Upon being served with a requirement to do so he filed returns and reported income as follows:

Rip T.C.J.:

Shane C. Gabie has appealed income tax assessments for 1993 and 1994 in which the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) disallowed claims for an Overseas Employment Tax Credit (“OETC”) pursuant to section 122.3 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”).

Christie A.C.J.T.C.:

These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1994 and 1995.

The issues to be determined are whether the appellant is entitled to deduct $9,788.00 in computing his income for 1994 and to deduct $7,223.00 for the same purpose in respect of 1995. It is alleged that these were alimony or maintenance payments.[1]