Patricia Robinson, George Grant, Darlene Grant v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2055, 87 DTC 16 -- text

Tremblay, T.C.J.:—This appeal was heard on common evidence with the appeals of George Grant (84-454(IT)) and Patricia Robinson (85-441(IT)) on April 18, 1986 at the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Forest Lane Holdings Limited, Bonibo Holdings Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2051, 87 DTC 1 -- text

Christie, A.C.J.T.C.:—These appeals were heard together. By notice of appeal dated April 7, 1985, Forest Lane Holdings Limited ("Forest Lane") appealed to this Court regarding its 1980, 1981 and 1982 taxation years. By notice of appeal of the same date

Graham Gilhooly v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2047, 87 DTC 4 -- text

Taylor, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment for the year 1983, heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 1986, in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed a deduction of $17,750 the appellant claimed for a "business

Lawrence S. Paikin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2041, 87 DTC 6 -- text

Kempo, T.C.J.:—This appeal is from reassessment for the 1981 taxation year of the appellant wherein the respondent disallowed losses exceeding the gross rentals in respect of a condominium described as Apartment 11G, 5750 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

Don Henderson Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2031, 86 DTC 1848 -- text

Taylor, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal heard in Belleville, Ontario, on September 30, 1986, against an income tax assessment for the year 1983, in which the Minister of National Revenue recalculated the “Capital Dividend Account” as filed by the appellant. In

Douglas v. Inskip v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 1 CTC 2009, 86 DTC 1837 -- text

Kempo, T.C.J.:—This appeal is in respect of the appellant’s 1980 taxation year. It concerns the respondent's disallowance, as being an outlay of capital, of a deduction claimed in the amount of $37,529.65 in respect of the appellant's farming business. This amount

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS