D E Taylor [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal, which was heard in the city of Montreal, Quebec on June 9, 1980, was brought following assessments in which the Minister of National Revenue refused deductions claimed by the appellant as alimony payments amounting

The Chairman:—This is the appeal of Mr Richard K Cooper from an income tax assessment in respect of the 1974 taxation year.

The Chairman:—The appeal of Susannah Dalfen is from assessment in respect of the 1974 taxation year by which the Minister added and additional amount of $3,581.66 as taxable income to the amount of $4,174 declared by the appellant as a taxable

The Chairman:—The appeal of Dutch-More Corporation is from an assessment in respect of the 1977 taxation year by which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed a deduction of $65,000 claimed by the appellant as a bad debt within the meaning of

Guy Tremblay:—This was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on October 2, 1980.

John B Goetz:—This is an appeal by the appellant with respect to his 1971 to 1976 taxation years inclusive, whereby the appellant was reassessed for those taxation years by way of a net worth assessment and also penalties were levied. Mr

John B Goetz:—These are appeals by Donald J Bubnick with respect to his 1977 and 1978 taxation years. These appeals involve particularly subparagraph (i) of paragraph 8(1 )(h) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63,

D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 22, 1980, against income tax assessments for the years 1975 and 1976 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed expenses of $4,822 and $6,841 deducted by the

The Assistant Chairman:—G W Dorman Pulp Chip Company Ltd (the appellant) has appealed to this Board from assessments for income tax for the 1973 and 1974 taxation years. The appellant reported a taxable income for 1973 and 1974. By the time the

John B Goetz:—This is an appeal by the appellant with respect to his 1976 taxation year whereby he disposed of all his holdings of shares in Beaufort Hills Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Beaufort Hills”) whereby the respondent assessed the