Kempo, T.C.C.J.:—The respondent on motion is seeking an order for an extension of time within which to file a reply to the notice of appeal of Alfred S. Carew (court file number 91-1503(IT) and to the notice of appeal of Arthur V. Carew

Rip, T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment for the 1985 taxation year, in which the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent, added $7,500 to the income of Emile Mercier, the appellant, in accordance with subsection 14(1) of the

Rip, T.C.C.J.:—By notice dated April 29, 1987, bearing number 536592, the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent, assessed Robert B. Roll ("Roll"), the appellant, "under subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952,

Teskey, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals his reassessment for 1986 wherein the Minister of National Revenue (the"Minister") disallowed a reported terminal loss on a building (that had been torn down in 1986) in Peterborough, Ontario, on land municipally known as 136

Couture, T.C.C.J.:—Il s'agit d'un appel à l'encontre d'une cotisation pour l'année d'imposition 1985 à l'égard de laquelle l'intimé a imposé une pénalité de 1 314,14 $ aux termes du paragraphe 162(1) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le

Bonner, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1987 and 1988 taxation years. On assessment the respondent disallowed deductions made under subparagraph 110(1)(f)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148

Sarchuk, T.C.C J.:—This is the appeal of Mr. Guncer Kesebi with respect to assessments of taxation for his 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years. The issue arises as follows: the respondent issued notices of reassessment dated June 19, 1989, notifying

P.R. Dussault, T.C.C.J.:—In the course of these appeals from reassessments for the appellant’s 1980 and 1981 taxation years, the respondent, after having filed a reply to the notice of appeal, made a motion for the following:

Tremblay, T.C.C.J.:—

Bowman, T.C.C.J.:—I reserved judgment on this motion to extend time for filing a notice of objection in part because of the complexity of the statutory provisions involved but more importantly because it reveals an appalling state of affairs that cries