Rouleau, J.:—The plaintiff is appealing the decision of the Tax Court of Canada which upheld assessments by the Minister of National Revenue for income taxes and interest payable for its 1980 and 1981 taxation years.
Reed, J.:—The respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, brings a motion seeking directions pursuant to subsection 232(10) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"). This is not the first time this matter has been before the Court. Mr. Justice Muldoon issued an order on March 4, 1992, dismissing a similar motion dated February 26, 1992. The applicants argue that the present motion should be dismissed because it is res judicata as a result of the decision of Mr. Justice Muldoon.
Linden, J.A.:—The issue in this appeal is whether expenses incurred to entertain clients at a fishing lodge are deductible. The Associate Chief Justice, in the decision being appealed, held that they were deductible, approving the decision to the same effect
Dubé, J.:—This appeal is from the reassessment of the plaintiff's 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years. The appeal was heard at the same time as the companion action of Harold Freeman (1-2403-87) and the same reasons for judgment will apply mutatis mutandis to both cases.
Reed, J.:—The plaintiff corporation appeals (by way of trial de novo) a decision of the Tax Court dated March 12, 1986, and reported at [1986] 1 C.T.C. 2339, 86 D.T.C. 1243, which held that the dispensing of prescription drugs in
MacGuigan, J.A. (Huggessen and Stone, J.J.A. concurring:—The principal issue in this appeal is the question of whether the respondent's losses for his 1980 through 1984 tax years are properly characterized as business losses, as the
Giles, A.S.P.:—The motion before me today, under Rule 324 is for an extension of time to file an appeal from the Tax Court of Canada. The Crown has indicated that it has no objection to an extension being granted. Neither the Crown nor
Giles, A.S.P.:—The motion before me was to strike the statement of claim as revealing no cause of action. The statement of claim sought a declaration that the Minister's collection action was improper, and an injunction restraining the Minister from
The Associate Chief Justice:—This action by way of an appeal from reassessments of income tax by the Minister of National Revenue (the"Minister") for Indema Ltd.'s 1982 and 1984 taxation years came on for hearing at London, Ontario on March
Hugessen, J.A.:—We are all of the view that the learned trial judge reached the correct conclusion.
