Teskey, T.C.J.: —The appellant appeals his 1981 income reassessment dated June 6, 1986 as confirmed on June 1, 1987.

Mogan, T.CJ.: — The appellant filed his 1988 income tax return and computed his income, his taxable income, his net federal tax and his Ontario tax. He then remitted what was payable except for the amount of $50 which he withheld for

Couture, C.J.T.C.:—The assessments under appeal are in respect of the appellant's 1985 and 1986 taxation years. The issue before the Court is whether subsection 19(1) of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971 (the "Rules") enacted as Part III of Chapter

Lamarre Proulx, T.C.J. [Translation]:—The appellant is appealing the reassessment made with respect to its 1981 taxation year by the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue.

Mogan, T.C.J.:—The appellant is a trust of which the trustee is Frank H. Galway and the beneficiary is his son Geoffrey Galway. At all material times, the appellant was the sole shareholder of Kentway Transportation Ltd. ("Kentway") which carried on

Lamarre Proulx, T.C.J.:—This case concerns an application, under section 167 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") for an extension of time to institute an appeal regarding the 1984

Christie, A.CJ.T.C.:—The issue is whether in computing its income for its 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 taxation years the appellant is entitled to deduct the full farming losses it sustained or is it, as alleged by the respondent, confined to deducting

Lamarre Proulx, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal against reassessments by the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, for the 1983, 1984 and 1985 taxation years.

Taylor, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal heard in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on August 3, 1990, against an assessment of income tax for the year 1983 and which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the claim of the appellant for a reserve

Sobier, T.CJ.:—This appeal was heard at Toronto on August 28, 1990. At the outset, counsel for the appellant and the respondent agreed that the facts in this appeal are not in dispute.