John Dick and Beverly Dick and Dick's Garage Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 CTC 2034, 91 DTC 811 -- text

Taylor, T.CJ.:—These are appeals heard on common evidence in Toronto, Ontario on January 29, 30, 31 and February 1, 1991 against income tax assessments covering the taxation years 1979 through 1985 for each of the appellants. Before, during and after the

Mary F. Kirkness, Mina Sinclair and John Wavey v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 CTC 2028 -- text

Beaubier, T.C.J.:—These appeals were heard, by consent, on common evidence at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 20 and 21, 1991. They pertain to the 1984, 1985 and 1986 taxation years for each of the appellants. In each year, the appellants were employed

Clarence Cocks v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 CTC 2023, 91 DTC 688 -- text

Margeson, T.C.J.:—The present appeal concerns only the question of whether or not the appellant's chief source of income during the taxation years 1985 and 1986 was farming, or a combination of farming and some other source of income. If it is not,

Mary Beth Susan Stiege v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 CTC 2005, 91 DTC 808 -- text

Mogan, T.CJ.:— When filing her 1987 income tax return, the appellant claimed Ontario tax credits of $500. By notice of reassessment, she was allowed. an Ontario tax credit of only $42.20. She served a notice of objection but the respondent confirmed

Gary Yott, Arcade Du Vieux Montréal Ltd. And Rideau Arcades Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 CTC 2001, 91 DTC 611 -- text

Lamarre Proulx, T.CJ.:—This is a motion by the respondent asking the Court to dismiss the appeals by Rideau Arcades Ltd. and Arcade du Vieux Montréal Ltd. and to allow the appeal by Gary Yott, in accordance with the terms of an agreement

Minister of National Revenue v. Automobile Narvoie Inc. And Radiateur La Sarre Inc., [1991] 2 CTC 370 -- text

Denault, J.: —The garnishee has applied for revocation of judgment and is seeking to be relieved of its failure to make a declaration upon service of a seizure. The party seeking rescission argued that there was a postal delay, while the party subject

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS