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

Cullen J.: — This is an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, of a decision of Mark Deakin, Director, Kitchener District Office of Revenue Canada, dated September 14, 1995,

Strayer J.T.C.C.: — The appeal raises two questions.

1. Were the amounts provided by the Government of Alberta to the respondent “assistance” as a

Jerome J.T.C.C.: — These three applications for judicial review of requirements issued by the respondent pursuant to section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) came on for hearing together before me at Vancouver, British

Teitelbaum J.: — The respondent informs me that he intends to make an application to declare the federal Income Tax Act ultra vires. I do not intend to prejudge his application, not having seen his application nor

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