Rowe, D.T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from an assessment of income tax for his 1986 taxation year whereby the respondent included into income the sum of $64,022.19 as funds or property of David Robinson Ltd. having been appropriated by the appellant and
Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.:— These appeals were heard on common evidence. The appeals concern the 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years. The point at issue is whether the purchase and sale of two buildings is an adventure in the nature of trade
Dussault, T.C.C.J.:— These are appeals from assessments for the appellant's 1984, 1985 and 1986 taxation years. In these assessments, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") refused to allow the appellant the small business deduction provided in section
Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.:— The appellant has instituted an appeal from the assessments made by the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), for 1984 and 1985.
Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.: Il s'agit d’une requête pour procéder in forma pauperis.
Christie, A.C.J.T.C.:—There are two issues to be determined. First, was the profit of $13,300 on the disposition in 1986 of 153 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, ("the Mooregate property”) a capital gain or business income. The second issue is the same
Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.:—This motion was heard on common evidence with the motion of Guy Ménard (90-1923(IT)).
Margeson, T.C.C.J.:—During the taxation years 1986, 1987 and 1988, the appellant incurred losses from his farming operations and deducted such losses in compiling his income for those years. The Minister reassessed the appellant for those years on the basis
Rowe, D.T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from a reassessment of income tax for the 1984 and 1985 taxation years. The Minister of National Revenue included into income the gain from the sale of 848-50 Fort Street, Victoria, British Columbia in the appellant's
Brulé, T.C.C.J.:—These are appeals for the taxpayer's 1984 and 1985 taxation years in which the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") assessed the appellant for income tax within the meaning of paragraph 212(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act
