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

Reed, J.:—The issue raised by this appeal (trial de novo) concerns the extent to which certain sums, arising out of the sale of a property, are exempt from capital gains tax as attributable to the sale of the taxpayer's

Strayer, J.: —This case was tried consecutively with that of Denis Verrier v. The Queen, [1988] 2 C.T.C. 274 and the same argument was applied to both cases.

Strayer, J.:

The Associate Chief Justice: — In these six files, nine motions came on for hearing at Edmonton, Alberta, on December 8, 1987. In the actions in which Her Majesty the Queen and the Minister of National Revenue are defendants,