Brulé, T.CJ.:—The appellant in this case, Jane Gardner, is appealing from notice of assessment no. 468004 dated November 4, 1982 and notice of reassessment no. 467989 dated October 28, 1981, issued by the respondent. These assessments were based on section

Tremblay, T.C.J. [Translation]:—This appeal was heard on March 9, 1987 at the City of Quebec, Quebec.

Tremblay, T.C.J. [Translation]:—This appeal was heard on December 18, 1986 at the City of Quebec, Quebec.

Goetz, T.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from a notice of reassessment dated May 5, 1987 with respect to his 1985 taxation year. The reassessment revised his taxable income to $2,671,624.72 and levied penalties in the amount of $353,355.43 pursuant to subparagraph

Tremblay, T.C.J.:—This appeal was heard on July 16, 1987 at the City of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

Couture, C.J.T.C.:—These appeals were heard on common evidence. They relate to assessments for the 1982 taxation year issued against the appellants by Revenue Canada on May 31, 1984 in respect of their alleged liability under subsection 227.1(1) of the

Brule, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal from the Minister of National Revenue's assessment of tax dated September 18, 1986, in the amount of $9,975, for the appellant's 1986 taxation year. The assessment was made, pursuant to section 160 of the Income

Sarchuk, T.C.J.:—John W. Rose ("Rose") appeals with respect to reassessments of income tax for his 1979, 1980 and 1981 taxation years. Two issues are raised by him. In filing his income tax returns for the years in issue the appellant sought to

Taylor, T.C.J.:—These are appeals heard on common evidence in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on June 14, 1988, against income tax assessments for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 dated October 17, 1984, for Morris Michayluk and October 27, 1984 for Gloria Michayluk,

Rip, T.C.J.:—Michael K. Taylor, the appellant, appeals from notices of reassessment for the 1980 and 1981 taxation years issued by the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent. The respondent assessed on the basis that since the appellant was a director