Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J. (orally):—This is an appeal from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), made under subsections 160(1) and 160(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72,
Dubienski, T.C.C.J. (orally):—You have to understand, doctor, that the law does not refer to condominiums or any other business; it refers to any business that does not show a reasonable expectation of profit, the losses in that business cannot be
Bell, T.C.C.J. (orally):—There are two issues in this appeal.
Margeson, T.C.C.J. (orally):—In the 1990 taxation year the Minister reassessed the appellant by including in income for that year the amount of $33,200 on the basis that it was received by the appellant in that year pursuant to a
Garon, T.C.C.J. (orally):—This is an appeal from an assessment dated July 5, 1990, made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the 1989 taxation year. This is a case where the appellant has elected to have the informal procedure
Dussault, T.C.C.J.:—This appeal was heard pursuant to the informal procedure. It is an appeal from a reassessment for the appellant's 1990 taxation year. By that assessment, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") disallowed the deduction of $6,851.70
Tremblay, T.C.C.J.:—This case was heard under the informal procedure on September 18,1992, in Québec City, Quebec.
Couture, C.T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal from an assessment for the 1988 taxation year. The facts underlying the assessment are relatively simple.
Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment of the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue (the" Minister”), for the 1989 taxation year.
Mahoney, J.A.:— This file has been referred to me for directions. The reasons for this order will read like a primer. That is because of the elementary cause of the problem: the failure of the learned trial judge to observe the requirements
