Ann D. Sparkes v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1993] 2 CTC 3162 -- text
McArthur, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment of income tax for her 1991 taxation year pursuant to the informal procedure.
McArthur, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment of income tax for her 1991 taxation year pursuant to the informal procedure.
Beaubier, T.C.C.J. (orally):—This matter was heard on June 28, 1993, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. John Zwack was the only witness. The appeals of John Zwack and Kendra Zwack were heard together on the consent of the parties, Mr. John Zwack being
Kempo, T.C.CJ.:—This appeal concerns the appellant's 1983, 1984 and 1985 taxation years during which time it was actively engaged in, inter alia, scientific research and development for the purpose of researching and developing computer software
Bowman, T.C.C.J. (orally):—These are my reasons for judgment in the cases of Pamela M. Reid, 93-1080, and Jennifer A. Jackman, 93-1081.
Christie, A.C.].T.C.C.:— This appeal is governed by the informal procedure prescribed by section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Beaubier, T.C.C.J.:—This matter was heard at Calgary, Alberta on October 22,1993 pursuant to the informal procedure of this Court. The appellant was the only witness.
Bell, T.C.C.J.:— This is a motion for an order that the appellant is estopped from proceeding with his appeals in respect of reassessments of tax for his 1980, 1981 and 1982 taxation years. The decision in a separate motion heard today resulted
McArthur, T.C.C.J.:— This appeal was heard in St. John’s, Newfoundland pursuant to the informal procedure, concerning the appellant's 1991 taxation year.
St-Onge, T.C.C.J.:—The appeal of Mr. Claude Roy was heard on April 30, 1993, in the City of Montreal, in the province of Quebec. The issue is whether the expenses claimed by the appellant were incurred for the purpose of gaining income from a
Mogan, T.C.C.J.:— In June 1980, the appellant subscribed for a unit in a limited partnership called "Omni Drilling Rig Partnership No. 1". The purchase price of the unit was $100,000. Upon subscription, the appellant paid $26,000 in cash and delivered