Dussault T.C.J.:
Mr. Boyer, I must unfortunately dismiss your appeal essentially for the reasons argued by Mr. Ayadi.
According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Ap- peal the question is whether the sum of $4,272 paid in 1995 to a Chinese institution, namely the Nanchang Social Welfare Institute of Jiangxi, for the care of the child Daphné, can be regarded as child care expenses.
The issues are:
Rip T.C.J.:
Keith James Betteridge, the appellant, appeals from an income tax assessment for 1993 that denied him an overseas employment tax credit ("OETC") on the basis that he was not employed by a specified employer carrying on business activities outside Canada as required by the provisions of subsection 122.3(1) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”).
Tremblay T.C.J.-.
The following facts support the application for an extension of time. These facts were essentially confirmed by the testimony of Gilles Roberge, an accountant, André Therrien, the appellant’s principal shareholder, and Claude Charpentier, an appeals officer from the respondent’s Sherbrooke office. They read as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
(1) On November 18, 1996 a notice confirming the assessments made for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years was sent to the appellant;
Christie A.C.J. T .C.:
This appeal is governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Bonner 17.C.J.:
Bowman T.C.J.:
This is an appeal from assessments for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years.
The Appellant, Mr. Cook, is a former R.C.M.P. officer and also he worked for a number of years at the Department of Indian Affairs. He’s always been very much interested in art, and to judge by the photographs of his art and the one painting that he showed to the Court, he has a great deal of talent. I was very much impressed with his work.
Beaubier T . C.J.:
This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure respecting the Appellant’s 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 9, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness.
The assumptions in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal are correct. Paragraphs I to 9 outline the problem. They read:
A. Statement of Facts (L518/R3668/T2/BT3) test_marked_paragraph_end (1854) 0.838 0716_5255_5363
Bowie T.C.J.:
During the 1994 taxation year the Appellant and his wife took a trip to Europe at the expense of General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GM). The issue in this appeal is whether the value of that trip is, in whole or in part, income from his employment pursuant to sections 5(1) and 6 of The Income Tax Act (the Act).
The Appellant was the only witness at the trial, and his evidence was not challenged by counsel for the Respondent; I accept it in its entirety.
Bonner T.C.J.:
This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the Appellant’s 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The Appellant and his wife separated in 1991. In October 1991 they entered into a written agreement, the body of which reads as follows:
