Antonio Magliaro v. Minister of National Revenue, [1980] CTC 2319, 80 DTC 1287 -- text
M J Bonner:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the appellant’s 1974 taxation year.
M J Bonner:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the appellant’s 1974 taxation year.
M J Bonner:—In these appeals the appellant challenges the validity of reassessments of income tax for the 1970 and 1971 taxation years on the basis that they were made beyond the four year period named in section 53 of the Income
Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This case was heard at Montreal, Quebec on March 19, 1979.
The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:-This is an appeal by Mr Armand Montpetit from an income tax assessment for the 1974 taxation year, by which the respondent added to the appellant’s income for the year in question the sum of $90,461.45, as being the
Guy Tremblay:—This case was heard in common evidence with the case of Thomas S Kelleher (77-1287) at the City of Toronto, Ontario, on June 27, 1979. The case was taken under advisement after the written submissions were received on November 2,
D E Taylor:—The appeals of David Chin (79-473), Yin Chiu Chan (79-472), C C Woo Chin (79-474), Bill Chan (79-475), Ming Wah Gin (79-476) and Nelson Chan (79-477) were heard on common evidence in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February
D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 14, 1980 against an income tax assessment for the year 1975 in which the Minister of National Revenue assessed the taxpayer to capital gain on the sale
The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:—This is an appeal by Mr Raymond Potvin from an assessment for the 1976 taxation year.
The Chairman:—This is the appeal of William T Anderson from an assessment in respect of the 1974 taxation year in which the Minister added to the appellant’s income an amount of $36,352 as his share of the gain on the disposition of land;
The Chairman:—The appeal of Donald Macaulay is from an assessment in respect of the 1975 taxation yar in which the appellant, having evaluated his principal residence at $62,500 objected to the Minister’s allocation of $37,200 for the residence in calculating