Rip, T.C.C.J.:—The Minister of National Revenue, Taxation, the respondent, assessed the appellant, Bill Voukelatos ("Voukelatos"), for tax for 1985 by including in his income, pursuant to subsection 15(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952,

Brulé, T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal involving the taxation years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 in which the appellant claimed the following:

1980—an allowable business investment loss of $25,406.64

Kempo, T.C.C.J.:—These appeals concern the appellant's 1980, 1981 and 1982 taxation years and are from the respondent's application of subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act")

Brulé, T.C.C.J.:—This appeal stems from a reassessment of the appellant's 1987 taxation year in which he was denied a deduction of $4,232.25 being a portion of funds he paid to his former wife.

Christie, A.C.J.T.C.:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax under Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") with respect to the appellant's 1986 taxation year which

Hamlyn, T.C.C.J.:—In his income tax return for the 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years, the appellant claimed net farming losses with respect to a horse racing operation as follows:

Goetz, T.C.C.J.:—By notice of motion of counsel for the Minister the following relief was requested:

Bonner, T.C.C.J. [Orally]:—This appellant appeals from an assessment issued against him as director of Atlantis Software Corporation Ltd. ("Atlantis") in respect of the failure of Atlantis to pay tax as required under Part VIII of the Income Tax

Taylor, T.C.C.J.:—These are appeals heard in Toronto, Ontario on November 21, 1991 against income tax assessments for the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, in which the Minister of National Revenue (” respondent") had assessed to tax as income of the

Kempo, T.C.CJ.:—The appeals of Miko Leung and of Sit Wa Leung were, on consent application, joined for hearing on common evidence. Counsel for the respondent having conceded that the subsection 163(2) penalties should be removed, two issues remained to be