The Associate Chief Justice:—This motion for an order pursuant to Rule 419(l)(a) of the Federal Court Rules striking out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim or in the alternative, staying the action, came on for hearing before me at Toronto,
Rouleau, J:—Il s’agit d’un appel d’un jugement rendu par la Commission de Révision de l’impôt, [1983] CTC 2559; 83 DTC 501, le 3 décembre 1982, rejetant l’appel que le contribuable a logé suite aux avis de nouvelles cotisations d’impôt sur le
The plaintiff commenced this action to appeal reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the taxation years 1972 to 1975 inclusive and to appeal against the disallowance of certain expenditures during 1970
The Associate Chief Justice:—These motions pursuant to Rule 344 to review decisions of the Taxing Officer, came on for hearing at Toronto, Ontario, on May 7, 1984. The trial in these matters took place at London, Ontario, in February of
Collier, J:—The plaintiff, in 1967, was the owner of certain corporate shares. Between October 13 and October 17 of that year, he transferred to two sons, by way of gift, 798 of the shares. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the plaintiff
McNair, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister’s assessment of tax for its 1979 and 1980 taxation years. The issue is whether subsection 129(6) of the Income Tax Act, applies to certain interest payments made by a
Muldoon, J:—This litigation is concerned with the effects of retroactive tax legislation. The plaintiff corporation is appealing from an income tax assessment whereby the Minister of National Revenue disallowed $1,057,916 of the plaintiffs royalty expense claim of
Muldoon, J:—In this case, the plaintiffs counsel asserts, as his primary principle, that which, in effect, was one of the basic slogans of a couple of revolutions: no taxation without representation. Here is how counsel put it in his own words,
Hugessen, J:—This is an application for extension of time in which to bring a section 28 application against a decision of the Minister of National Revenue rejecting an application for refund made under subsection 44(7) of the Excise Tax
Rosenberg, J:—This is an application to quash the retention order made by the Honourable Judge Kenneth William Warrender on the first day of April, 1980. The application was originally made “pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules respecting Criminal Proceedings”.
