Rothstein J.: — This is an appeal de novo from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The issues are whether amounts received by others were in reality the income of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a lawyer practising in

Heald D.J.: — This is an action commenced by Statement of Claim filed October 7, 1983, wherein the Plaintiff appeals the reassessments under the Income Tax Act [1] (the “Act”) in respect of the 1977-1980

Gibson J.: — This action arises out of a reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on 20 March, 1985 in respect of the plaintiff’s 1982 taxation year. The plaintiff appealed the Minister’s reassessment to the Tax

Simpson J.T.C.C.: — Let the attached transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario, the 6th day of November, 1995, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court

Simpson J.: — Grant Wilson (the “Taxpayer”) appeals a reassessment of his 1978 Income Tax Return on the basis that the Minister of National Revenue (“Revenue Canada”) failed to reassess with due dispatch following a notice of objection as required

Cases cited:-

Oke v. Speller, [1921] 1 W.W.R. 1117, [1922] 59 D.L.R. 678;

Simpson J.: — Let the attached transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario, the 2nd day of April, 1996, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.

Wetston J.: - This is an appeal by way of trial de novo from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated August 21, 1989, which dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal from income tax reassessments for the taxation years

Hargrave P.: — These reasons arise out of the Defendants’ motion to strike out the Statement of Claim under Rule 419(l)(a), (c) and (f), that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and that

Rothstein J.T.C.C.: -