McNair, J.: —This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister of National Revenue's reassessment of income for the 1980 taxation year. The first issue is whether the Minister was correct in treating as inventory the cost of spare parts

Joyal, J.: —This is an appeal by the Crown, by way of a trial de novo, from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada allowing the defendant taxpayer certain expenses against commission income earned by him in the taxation

Joyal, J.: —This Court faces two issues relating to the plaintiff's tax liability under the Income Tax Act. One issue is with respect to the classification, for capital cost allowance purposes, of certain equipment used in it

Martin, J.:—The taxpayer plaintiff, Frank Grouchy, appeals the reassessment of his income for his 1981 and 1982 taxation years whereby certain income for those years, which had been claimed as being on capital account, was characterized by the Minister of

Mahoney, J.A.:—These appeals are from identical orders made by the Associate Chief Justice on applications of the respondent taxpayers, who claimed refunds of taxes they had not paid under Part VIII of the Income Tax Act. The reasons

MacKay, J.:—The plaintiffs, Gary C. Graves and Mary J. Graves, appeal pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, from the decision of the Tax Court of Canada rendered August 29,

MacKay, J.:—This case, heard in Saskatoon, concerns the deduction of restricted farm losses as provided for in subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c.63, as amended.

Mahoney, J.A.: —With respect, the present facts simply do not support the appellant’s submissions that this is something of a landmark case. It is not. Our judgment cannot affect anyone except the parties and perhaps the other taxpayers who, it

Martin, J.:—The plaintiff is a farmer who now resides in the City of Saskatoon. Not only was the plaintiff a farmer but he was also a successful one who had, by 1980, accumulated substantial savings, property and credit. In that year he

Collver, J.:—This is an application by the respondents occasioned by an administrative error by a Collections Investigations Officer. The respondents seek relief from their failure to make a timely reply to the appellant’s notice of appeal against a substantial