McArthur T.C.J.:
The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years for a deduction of $8,000 and $7,200 as alimony or maintenance and child support with respect to his estranged spouse Barbara Boachie-Yiadom and the sum of $5,380 for the same years in respect of his child Christel born from another union.
Dealing firstly with claim number 1:
McArthur T . C.J.:
The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim for non-refundable tax credits in respect of a married amount of $5,380 for the taxation years 1993, 1994 and 1995.
The Minister submits that the Appellant was not a married person who supported his spouse and that he was not entitled to benefits contained in paragraph 1 18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).
Tanasychuk B., T.O., T.C.C.:
This taxation came on for hearing on July 9, 1998, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge McArthur dated May 1, 1996, in which he allowed the appeals made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the 1990 and 1991 taxation years, with costs. The Appellant represented herself at the hearing and at the taxation. Mr. Sean O’Donnell represented the Respondent.
The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Appellant is as follows:
Bowman T.C.J.:
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from an assessment for the 1995 taxation year, whereby the Appellant claimed under section 118.9 amounts transferred to him as a supporting person from his daughter. The amounts claimed by Mr. Sandford fall under two sections of the Income Tax Act.
The facts are that his daughter, who was 12 years of age in 1995, attended the Edmonton School of Ballet. The Edmonton School of Ballet provides a combined program of ballet and regular academic courses. It is a full-time program, and it is
Beaubier T.C.J.:
REGISTRAR: Recall file 97-1327 (Income Tax) informed between DESMOND GRANT and Her Majesty the Queen.
HIS HONOUR: This appeal pursuant to the Informed Procedure was held in Calgary on July 22, 1998. The appellant was the only witness. The assumptions in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:
6. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
O’Connor T.C.J.:
These appeals were heard at St. Catharines, Ontario on September 3, 1998 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court.
The principal facts and issues involved are summarized in the following allegations in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal:
Mogan T.C.J.:
Sarchuk T.C.J.:
This is an appeal by G. Lee MacMillan (the Appellant) from an assessment of tax with respect to his 1991 taxation year. The events which ultimately led to this assessment began on August 9, 1990 when the Appellant incorporated a company under the name and style of 898673 Ontario Inc. (the Company). It operated a taxi service during all or parts of 1991 using its own vehicle and others registered in the name of the Appellant.
Sarchuk 7.C.J.:
McArthur T.C.J.:
The Appellant appeals his 1996 assessment by the Minister of National Revenue wherein the Appellant was assessed interests on instalments in the amount of $450.40 and arrears interest of $2.34.
The question is whether the Appellant is liable to pay deficient instalment interest for the 1996 taxation year.
