Taylor, TCJ:—These appeals were heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 19, 1984 against income tax assessments for the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed as deductions, amounts related to uncollectibility of

Taylor, TCJ:—This is an appeal heard in Montreal, Quebec, on October 16, 1984 against income tax assessments for the years 1976 and 1977 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed as deductions alleged expenses claimed as follows:

Tremblay, TCJ:—This appeal was heard on June 7, 1984, in the city of London, Ontario.

Brulé, TCJ:—This is an appeal involving the 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 taxation years of the appellant. The issue in this case is whether the taxpayer, a bona fide farmer, can purchase cattle in December of one year, and sell them in January

Cardin, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—The appeal of Jean-Paul Biron is against tax assessments made by the respondent for the 1974 to 1980 taxation years inclusive, by the “‘net worth” method.

Cardin, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—The appeals of Dr Hirsh Rosenfeld and Mr Harry C Palnick were heard on common evidence in Montreal on June 8, 1984. For the 1976 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue added $108,321.97 to the income reported by

Cardin, TCJ [TRANSLATION]:—By a notice of assessment dated December 21, 1981, the Minister of National Revenue disallowed amounts of $1,235, $4,974.58 and $5,000 for the 1977, 1978 and 1979 taxation years respectively that had been claimed by the appellant

Sarchuk, TCJ:—These are appeals from reassessments for the appellant’s 1979, 1980 and 1981 taxation years. The issue to be resolved is whether the gains made from the sale of four separate hotel properties constituted capital gains as alleged by the appellant or income

Taylor, TCJ [ORALLY]:—As I see it, I have one problem — the statement made by counsel of record for the appellant that he is unable to proceed this afternoon, and requests an adjournment. From the Board’s viewpoint, the matter has been

St-Onge, TCJ [ORALLY]:—I think I have to agree with counsel for the Minister in this case. I have to look at this first delay, the ninety days, and the only reason given by the taxpayer in this case is ignorance of the law. This is not