Goetz, J.T.C.C.:— Well, in my recess I reviewed my notes, notes of evidence and the pertinent exhibits, and it's been decided that the appeal of Susan Alexandropoulos and that of Terry Scanlon be heard on common evidence, which they were. The
Christie, A.C.J.T.C.C.:—The year under appeal is 1987. There are two issues to be determined. First, the taxable capital gain realized by the appellant on the sale by it of 60 The Bridle Path, North York, Ontario ("the property”). Second, the liability
Bowman, J.T.C.C.:—This appeal is from an assessment for 1992. In fact the appellant endeavoured to raise the same issue for 1993 but since he had not yet been assessed for that year his purported appeal for 1993 was quashed.
Garon, J.T.C.C.:—These are appeals by the appellant Grunbaum from the income tax reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1986 and 1987 taxation years.
Teskey, J.T.C.C.:—The appellants, Edith and George Kauntz, both elected to have these appeals heard on common evidence and pursuant to the informal procedure.
Kempo, J.T.C.C.:—These reasons were not formally read at the conclusion of the hearing as there was considerable exchange between the Court and Mr. Parks with respect to the equitable relief he was requesting and the jurisdictional limitations upon the Court
Christie, A.C.J.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, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2.
Taylor, J.T.C.C.:—This is an appeal under the informal procedure, heard in Calgary, Alberta, on December 10, 1993, against an assessment under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") in which the
Taylor, J.T.C.C.:—This is an appeal under the informal procedure, heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 26, 1994, against an income tax assessment for the year 1990, in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed an amount of $5,482.12 of the total
Brulé, J.T.C.C.:—These appeals, heard under the General Procedure provisions of this Court, involve the appellant’s 1988 and 1989 taxation years. Objection has been raised to assessments by the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") in these years involving rental
