Cullen, J.:—This is an appeal from reassessment of tax for the plaintiff's 1975 and 1976 taxation years. Since the filing of this appeal, a number of issues have been resolved and a judgment pro tanto has been ordered by the

Marceau, J.:—This appeal is from a preliminary determination on a question of law, made by a judge of the Trial Division pursuant to rule 474 of the Rules of the Court. To understand the question as it was put to the trial judge, the

Urie, J.:—Two issues are raised in this appeal from a judgment of the Associate Chief Justice of the Trial Division.

Strayer, J.: —

Le juge Pinard: —II s'agit d'un appel par le demandeur de la décision de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt qui a confirmé les avis de nouvelle cotisation par le ministre du Revenu du Canada à l'effet de refuser au contribuable le

Le juge Pinard: —Il s'agit d'un appel, sous forme d'action, en vertu des paragraphes 172(1) et 175(3) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 et amendements, interjeté par la contribuable

Reed, J.: —The facts in this case are not in dispute. The question raised is whether the plaintiff can obtain a refund of certain excise taxes paid pursuant to part IV.1 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-13

Rouleau, J.:—The taxpayer is appealing, by way of trial de novo, a decision of the Tax Court of Canada rendered June 1, 1987. The issue concerns the deductibility of $5,000 in moving expenses incurred by the plaintiff in moving

Collier, J.: —This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. That Court, (Christie, A.C.J.T.C.), dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the assessment, by the Minister of National Revenue, of his 1980 income tax. The Minister had

Reed, J.:—The issue in this case is the proper classification for capital cost allowance purposes of certain equipment purchased by the taxpayer in the 1982, 1983 and 1984 taxation years. That equipment is described as follows: D8 Caterpillar Tractor; D7G