Barry Hyman and Lucille Hyman v. Minister of National Revenue, [1988] 1 CTC 2516, 88 DTC 1352 -- text
Brulé T.C.J.: —
Brulé T.C.J.: —
Taylor, T.C.J.:— These are appeals heard in Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 1988, against income tax assessments for the taxation years 1979, 1980, and 1981, since the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the claim of $301,757 as an “allowable business
Christie, A.C.J.T.C.: — In computing its income for its 1983 taxation year the appellant sought to deduct $20,000 paid in settlement of a claim for damages plus $12,589 in legal fees related to that claim. The respondent reassessed on September
Taylor, T.C.J.: —These are appeals on common evidence, commenced to be heard in Victoria, British Columbia, on September 24 and 25, 1987, and concluded on November 30 and December 1, 1987, against income tax assessments for the years 1981 and
Goetz, T.C.J.: —This is an appeal by the appellant seeking to claim in his deductions tuition fees as being medical expenses in filing his tax returns for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984.
Taylor, T.C.J.:—These are appeals heard on common evidence in Toronto, Ontario, on February 24, 1988, against income tax assessments for the years 1981, 1983 and 1984 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed deductions claimed during these years as
Tremblay, T.C.J.:—This appeal was heard on April 9, 1987 at the City of Calgary, Alberta.
Taylor, T.CJ.:—These are appeals (a total of 10 in number) heard on common evidence in Calgary, Alberta, on September 3 and 4 and on November 17 and 18, 1987, against income tax assessments for the years 1978 and 1979 for the Estate of
Taylor, T.C.J.: —These are appeals heard in Toronto, Ontario, on February 23, 1988, which the parties agreed should be determined together, since there was only a single point at issue. The parties further agreed that the notice of appeal and
Sarchuk, T.CJ.:—The appeals of Mr. O'Sullivan (O'Sullivan) are from reassessments to tax for his 1979, 1980 and 1981 taxation years. Several issues are raised by the appellant in his notice of appeal. The first arises out of the inclusion by the