Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.:— These are appeals concerning the 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years. The assessments under appeal were made following a calculation of the appellant’s income made using the net worth method. The total adjusted income based on

Couture, C.J.T.C.C.:—This appeal concerns the appellant’s 1990 taxation year. He acted for himself and asked to proceed under the informal procedure.

Bowman, J.T.C.C. (orally):—This is an appeal from the reassessment of Mr. Nickolas Mourtzis for his 1987 taxation year and it has to do with the question of whether an amount received by him was an eligible capital amount on the disposition

Couture, CJ.T.C.C.:—This appeal was heard under the rules of procedure of the Tax Court of Canada governing the informal procedure. The appellant acted on his own behalf in appealing from assessments for the 1987 and 1988 taxation years. In reassessing

Rip, J.T.C.C.:— Blaine Leavitt, the appellant, has appealed reassessments of tax for the 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1989 taxation years. In computing his income for 1988 and 1989 Leavitt deducted his losses from farming in the amounts of $79,898.56 and

Sobier, J.T.C.C.:— The appellant originally appealed the assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") for his 1988 and 1989 taxation years.

Mogan, J.T.C.C.:—The appeals of Cochrane v. M.N.R. (Court Number 88-1879) and Jerram v. M.N.R. (Court Number 88-1880) were heard together on common evidence. Cochrane and Jerram were equal partners in the ownership of

Beaubier, J.T.C.C.:— This appeal pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba on March 10, 1994.

Bell, J.T.C.C.:— These reasons are written in respect of a motion brought by the appellant prior to the hearing of an appeal instituted by the appellant under section 169 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C.

Hamlyn, J.T.C.C.:—The essence of these appeals is whether the appellant or a corporation associated with the appellant carried on business for the taxation years in question and whether the appellant was part of the ownership of a condominium leased out