Andre Varga v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2295, 84 DTC 1278 -- text

Cardin, TCJ:—Andre Varga is appealing from an assessment of tax dated September 19, 1979. The issue is whether amounts of $37,715, $504,000 and $49,385 received by the appellant in 1972, 1973 and 1974 respectively were payments in consideration of

DR John L McCans v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2286, 84 DTC 1270 -- text

Cardin, TCJ:—The appeal of Dr John L McCans is from assessments of tax dated April 3, 1980, with respect to the 1977 and 1978 taxation years. The appellant claimed, among other items, automobile expenses which were disallowed by the respondent. As

The Minister of National Revenue v. D Stanley Macdonell, James Ryan, Erich Kothke, Johann Martin, William R Lange, David B Delmore, Michel Dube, Perry T Harron, Wolfe Latell and Cecil Blakely, [1984] CTC 2279, 84 DTC 1258 -- text

Christie, CJTC:—These are ten applications to quash appeals which were heard together by agreement. What is essential to the determination of the issue is the same in each case.

James E R McArdle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2277, 84 DTC 1251 -- text

Christie, CJTC:—This appeal relates to the appellant’s 1978 taxation year. In that year he left his employment with Integrated Building Corporation Ltd (“Integrated”). While employed he owed Integrated $14,774.72, the repayment of which was waived by it. By notice of reassessment

Paul Nowlan v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2274, 84 DTC 1250 -- text

Cardin, TCJ [ORALLY]:—Mr Paul Nowlan, as a self employed fisherman, is appealing from income tax assessment for the 1978 taxation year. In that year, the Minister of National Revenue added to the appellant’s income an amount of $9,628. That amount

Jean-Pierre Vinette v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] CTC 2257, 84 DTC 1237 -- text

Taylor, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal, which ws heard in Montreal, Quebec on October 12, 1983, is from a tax assessment for 1979 in which the Minister of National Revenue relied on the fact that the sum of $2,781.56 received by the taxpayer should

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS