Walsh, J:—This is an appeal of the income tax reassessment of the late Edward R Bibby for the taxation years 1978 and 1979 whereby the Minister of National Revenue included the sum of $23,331 as a taxable capital gain in respect of the
Collier, J:—These are my reasons. Mr Kendall, I have every sympathy in the world for you, but I regret I must confirm the tax gatherer’s approach in this case. When you succeeded in front of Mr Dubrule in the Tax Review Board, he
Heald, J:—For the reasons expressed in the case of George Golden v Her Majesty The Queen, File A-760-80, a copy of which is attached hereto, I would allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division whereby the appellant’s 1973 income tax assessment was referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for further reassessment on the basis that the consideration for the disposition of
Mahoney, J:—This is a management company case. It was tried together on common evidence with Rex T Parsons v The Queen, Court file no T-2660-81. Parsons testified first; the plaintiff, Frederick G Vivian, was excluded
Mahoney, J:—This action was tried on common evidence with a like action against the defendant’s wife, May Yates, Court file no T-4484-81. The evidence consisted entirely of the transcript of the Tax Review Board hearing, which included a partial agreed
Walsh, J:—A provisional order was issued in this matter against defendant on November 29, 1976, resulting from a certificate produced on November 25, 1976, for income tax arrears for the years of 1973, 1974 and 1975, total- ling $100,419.18, which
Mahoney, J:—The issue is whether, upon conversion in 1977 of a debenture purchased from his employer in 1972, the plaintiff received a taxable benefit in the amount of $6,577.25, being the difference between the value of the shares acquired on conversion
Grant, DJ:—The plaintiff is a company that carried on business as a manufacturer and fabricator of metal forgings, castings and other metal products for some time prior to December 31, 1976. Two of the principal management employees of the plaintiff were
Mahoney, J:—This is a special case stated pursuant to Rule 475. The subject is issue estoppel. The questions to be answered are:
