Thomas B Matheson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2810, 82 DTC 1819 -- text
Guy Tremblay:—This case was heard on April 29, 1982, at the City of London, Ontario.
Guy Tremblay:—This case was heard on April 29, 1982, at the City of London, Ontario.
The Assistant Chairman:—To the reported income of the appellant for the 1974 taxation year, was added a dividend in the amount of $237,405 paid to him by The Hamilton Tiger-Cat Football Club Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
M J Bonner:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the 1978 taxation year. The Minister, on assessment, included in the computa- tion of income a taxable capital gain which he found was realized as a consequence of a
John B Goetz:—This is an appeal with respect to the appellant’s 1976 taxation year. It was agreed by counsel that the appeals of Rosalind Wai-Yue Cheng Wong with respect to her 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years (80-
John B Goetz:—This is an appeal by the appellant with respect to its taxation year ending June 5, 1978.
M J Bonner [ORALLY]:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the 1979 taxation year. The issue is whether the Minister was correct in denying the deduction claimed by the appellant under paragraph 110(1)(h) of the Income
The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal by Construction Sylvain Ltée is from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the taxation year 1979. The point for decision in the case at bar is the fair market value of the appellant’s inventory
John B Goetz [ORALLY]:—I might point out Mr Midyette, that I have carefully examined the material in the file that was handed to me, your notice of appeal as well as the reply to the notice of appeal, and your appeal relates to
D E Taylor [ORALLY]:—This is an appeal from Eva Edna Racette with respect to the amount of money ($67,800) received as a result of a judgment dated July 6, 1977 from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan. The matter at issue is
Roland St-Onge [ORALLY]:—The appeals of Mr and Mrs Quinten Van de Vrie came before me on August 31 and September 1, 1982 in the City of London, Province of Ontario and were heard on common evidence. The issue has to do with valuation of