Kempo, T.C.C.J.:—This informal procedure appeal of Dorothy Mary Anderson concerns her 1989 taxation year.

Bell, T.C.C.J. (orally):—The appeal herein relates to the appellant's 1986 and 1987 taxation years.

There are three issues:

Sarchuk, T.C.C.J.:— This is an appeal by Daniel Dragovich (Dragovich) from an assessment of tax for the 1989 taxation year. Pursuant to the provisions of section 18.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act the appellant has elected

Hamlyn, T.C.C.J. (orally):— This is in the matter of Robert A.B. Jones, appellant and Her Majesty The Queen, respondent. It is an appeal with respect to the 1986,1987 and 1988 taxation years. In respect of his 1986, 1987 and 1988 taxation

Garon, T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue on May 16, 1988 for the 1986 taxation year. In that assessment, the Minister of National Revenue added in the computation of the appellant's

Beaubier, T.C.CJ.:—This appeal was heard in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on October 6, 1992. It is an appeal pursuant to the informal procedure of this Court.

Teskey, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant elected to have his appeal against his 1988 assessment for tax heard pursuant to the informal procedure.

Rowe, D.T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from a reassessment of income tax for the 1989 taxation year. In computing income tax for the 1989 taxation year the appellant claimed a refundable investment tax credit in the amount of $6,485 in respect of

Rowe, D .T.C.C.).:—The appellant appeals from a reassessment of income tax for her 1990 taxation year. In filing her income tax return for the 1990 taxation year the appellant did not report any child maintenance payments received by her in the

Christie, A.C.T.C.C.J.:— The year under review is 1984. The issue is whether the profit realized by the appellant on the disposition of shares of General American Technologies Inc. is business income or a capital gain. In response to an offering