Doris Merrill Nelson v. The Attorney General of Canada, [1996] 3 CTC 342 -- text
John A. Hargrave Prothonotary: —
John A. Hargrave Prothonotary: —
Cullen J.: — This is an appeal of a reassessment of the plaintiff’s 1978 taxation year. The plaintiff requests that the reassessment for 1978 for federal and provincial tax purposes concerning interest capitalized and interest converted to exploration,
Robertson J.A.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 31, 1993 which dismissed the appellant taxpayer’s appeal from a reassessment of income tax for the 1986 taxation year. Therein Bowman J.T.C.C. held that
Stone J.A.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada of July 4, 1996. A companion appeal is also before us in Court File No. A-434-95. The decisions of the Tax Court of Canada, containing an Agreed Statement
Robertson J.A.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. Succinctly stated, the issue to be decided is whether a lump sum payment received by the appellant taxpayer, an American citizen and resident of Canada, is
Isaac C.J. (Stone and McDonald, J J. A., concurring: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division, [1994] 2 F.C. 154, affirming a decision of the Tax Court [reported 92 D.T.C. 1652] which had
Joyal J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal by way of a trial de novo from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated October 21, 1986. In that judgment, the Tax Court confirmed an earlier assessment by the defendant, declaring
Dubé J.: — The plaintiff appeals pursuant to the Excise Tax Act (Canada) R.S.C. c. E-13 (the “Act”) from a Notice of Decision dated April 24, 1992 of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and a Decision
Jerome J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada which upheld the Assessment of the Minister of National Revenue for interest on insufficient instalment payments in respect of the plaintiffs 1985 taxation year.
Hugessen J.A: — This is an appeal from a judgment which dismissed the appellant’s appeal of the Minister’s disallowance for the taxation years 1980 through 1983 of certain “soft” costs in relation to a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) development