King, D.J.T.C.:—The appellant is appealing from a reassessment for his 1986 taxation year.

Taylor, T.C.J.:— This is an appeal heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 20, 1990, against an assessment in the amount of $15,060.44 being the amount for federal tax, provincial tax, Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment insurance, penalty and interest for

Bonner, T.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for its taxation years ending on April 30, 1984, 1985 and 1986. At issue is the amount of the resource allowance which, by virtue of paragraph 20(1)(v.1) of the Income

Mogan, T.C.J.:—The appeals of Herbert Liffman and David Wolinsky were heard together on common evidence. In 1980, Central Canadian Properties Ltd. ("CCP") loaned to each appellant the sum of $80,000. Identical promissory notes signed by the appellants provided for

Bonner, T.CJ.:—The appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1984, 1985 and 1986 taxation years. Two aspects of the assessments are in dispute. Firstly, rental losses claimed by the appellant in respect of a condominium residence in Florida

Taylor, T.C.J.: —This is an appeal heard in Thunder Bay, Ontario, on July 5, 1990, against an income assessment for the year 1978, in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the income of the appellant as follows:

Brulé, T.CJ.:— This is an appeal from reassessments issued by the respondent in respect of the appellant's 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 taxation years.

Rip, T.C.J.: —Roy Legumex Inc. ("Roy"), the appellant, appeals from reassessments for its 1982, 1983 and 1984 taxation years and an assessment for its 1986 taxation year. In assessing, the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent, reclassified properties

Teskey, T.C.J.: —The appellant appeals his assessment dated August 9, 1985 wherein the respondents assessed the income tax payable by the appellant for 1984 by calculating his average income based on the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984.

Christie, A.C.J.T.C. [Orally]:— 1 will now deliver the reasons for the judgment that shall be issued in Potvin v. M.N.R.