Otineka Development Corp. Ltd. v. The Queen, 94 DTC 1234, [1994] 1 CTC 2424 (TCC) -- text

Bowman, J.T.C.C.:—These appeals were heard together and are, in the case of Otineka Development Corp., from an assessment for 1986 and, in the case of 72902 Manitoba Ltd., from assessments for 1986 and 1987. In both cases the issue is whether the

Marchcroft Farms Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 1 CTC 2420, 94 DTC 1245 -- text

Archambault, J.T.C.C.:—The only issue raised by the appeal of the appellant is the penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") in connection with undisclosed income

Edward G. Lyness v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 1 CTC 2416, 94 DTC 1242 -- text

Sobier, J.T.C.C.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister"), for his 1988 and 1989 taxation years, whereby the Minister included in his income for 1988, the amount of $72,917, and for 1989, the amount

Egard v. The Queen, 94 DTC 1232, [1994] 1 CTC 2407 (TCC) -- text

Sobier, J.T.C.C.:—The appellant appeals from the assessments by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") for his 1990 taxation year whereby the Minister included in his income for that year, an amount equal to the amount the appellant became entitled to on deregistering a registered retirement savings plan (the "RRSP").

The parties filed an agreed statement of facts and the relevant portions are set out below:

Jo-Anne McCluskie v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1994] 1 CTC 2401, 94 DTC 1735 -- text

Rip, J.T.C.C.:—In computing her income for 1991 Jo-Anne McCluskie ("McCluskie") deducted child care expenses of $10,205.78. The Minister of National Revenue ("Minister"), in reassessing McCluskie, reduced the amount of child care expenses deductible in computing her income

Donovan v. The Queen, 94 DTC 1143, [1994] 1 CTC 2394 (TCC), aff'd 96 DTC 6085 (FCA) -- text

Teskey, J.T.C.C.:—The appellant appeals his assessments of income tax for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. These appeals were heard under the General Procedure Rules.

Issues

The two issues before me are:

1. Whether a benefit was conferred by ASDCO Holdings Inc. ("Holdings") on the appellant in his capacity as a shareholder of Holdings within the meaning of section 15 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), and

Gordon G. Duncan and Marjorie J. Duncan v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 1 CTC 2393, 94 DTC 1142 -- text

Bell, J.T.C.C. (orally):—The decision which I must make in this case is based entirely upon fact. In my opinion, the valuation that I must determine in respect of the transaction in question of land transfer by the appellants to Duncan Associates Ltd. in January

Guiseppe Desantis and Lidia Desantis v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure)., [1994] 1 CTC 2387 -- text

Brulé, J.T.C.C.:—These appeals, heard on common evidence under the informal procedure provisions of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. T-2, involve the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") reassessing the appellants

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS