Kruger Inc, Et Al v. Minister of National Revenue, Et Al, [1983] CTC 319, 83 DTC 5322 -- text
Dubé J:—Upon a motion made by counsel on behalf of the applicants to the presiding judge of this Honourable Court for:
Dubé J:—Upon a motion made by counsel on behalf of the applicants to the presiding judge of this Honourable Court for:
Le Juge Décary:—Ce qu'il faut déterminer, c’est de savoir si les dépenses que les docteurs Lalande et Watelle ont encourues et qui sont décrites à l’entente partielle sur les faits, sont de nature revenu, c’est à dire, en vue de gagner
Le Juge Décary:—Il s’agit de déterminer si à la suite de certaines transactions intervenues entre la demanderesse et Clement Robitaille et Raymond Robitaille, ces derniers se devaient, conformément au paragraphe 212(2) et à l'article 212.1 de la Loi
Le Juge Décary:—Dans cette affaire il s’agit de déterminer si le Ministre avait le droit d’imposer comme revenu un bénéfice réalisé par le demandeur parce qu’il aurait exercé une entreprise ou une affaire selon les dispositions de l’article 248(1) de
Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal from income tax reassessments in respect of the respondent’s 1975 and 1977 taxation years.
Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal from an income tax reassessment in respect of the respondent’s 1975 taxation year. For the reasons given in A-702-81, with reference to the reassessment in
Clement, J:—In this action the appellant Company claims that a certificate, given by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue pursuant to subsection 52(4) of the Excise Tax Act (herein called the Act) as to the amount of tax
Thurlow, C J:—This is the first of two applications under section 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside refusals by the Minister of National Revenue of the applicant’s applications for refunds of amounts paid
Thurlow, C J:—We do not need to hear you Mr Goodman and Miss Swystun.
Thurlow, C J:—We are all of the opinion that the Tariff Board did not err in law in holding that the respondent’s publications, “Auto Trader” and “Truck, Bike and Boat Trader” are exempt from the sales tax imposed by subsection 27(1) of