Rip, TCJ:—In assessing income tax to the appellant, William Hum, for 1977 and 1978 the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, added to his income previously assessed the sums of $40,000 and $29,153.73, respectively; the respondent described these amounts
Kempo, TCJ:—This is an appeal involving the 1979 and 1980 taxation years of the appellant.
Cardin, TCJ:—George Canetti, a commission salesman and one of the sales managers of Control Data Canada (“The Company”), is appealing from an assessment of tax in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed expenses in the amount of $7,848.94 claimed
Bonner, TCJ: [ORALLY]:—The appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years. Throughout those years the appellant derived income from the rental of residential real estate located both in Alberta and in British
Christie, ACJTC:—This appeal relates to the appellant’s 1981 taxation year. In that year he received $48,055.40 from Gainers Inc (“Gainers”) which he excluded in the computation of his income under the Income Tax Act (“the Act”). By
Taylor, TCJ:—This is an appeal heard in Vancouver, British Columbia on January 30, 1985, against income tax assessments in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed all deductions claimed as expenses against employment income for the year 1980 and all
Cardin, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—With the consent of the parties, the appeals by Antoine Dionne and André Rancourt were heard on common evidence in the City of Québec on October 16, 1984. By notice of assessment dated November 19, 1982, the Minister of
Cardin, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—By notice of reassessments, the Minister of National Revenue imposed on Jose Nieto penalties in the amount of $3,075, $235.12 and $895.45 for the 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years, respectively. In addition, the Minister added to
Brule, TCJ:—
Christie, ACJTC:—These appeals relate to the appellants’ 1979 taxation year. They were heard together on common evidence by agreement among the parties and with the consent of the Court. The issue is whether the respondent was correct in his reassessments
