Archbold v. The Queen, [1995] 1 CTC 2872 (TCC) -- text
Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:—The appellant is appealing by way of the informal procedure from the assessments of the Minister of National Revenue (the ’’Minister") for the years 1990 and 1991.
Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:—The appellant is appealing by way of the informal procedure from the assessments of the Minister of National Revenue (the ’’Minister") for the years 1990 and 1991.
Bonner J.T.C.C.:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the appellant’s 1988 taxation year. The issue is whether shares of Pursuit Fisheries (1987) Ltd. ("Pursuit") which were sold by the appellant on November 4, 1988 were, at the time
Sobier J.T.C.C.:—The appellant appeals from the assessments by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister”), for her 1988 taxation year whereby the Minister disallowed the deduction of the amount of $8,499 as a net capital loss for other years ("loss
Tremblay J.T.C.C.:-This appeal was heard pursuant to the informal procedure on March 28, 1994, in Québec City, Quebec.
Dussault J.T.C.C.:—This is an appeal from an assessment for the appellant’s 1987 taxation year. The case essentially concerns the method used by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") to determine the tax under Part IV of the
Teskey J.T.C.C.:-This appeal was heard under the informal procedure.
Tremblay J.T.C.C.:—This appeal was heard in Montréal, Quebec on May 9, 1994.
Archambault J.T.C.C.:-These are appeals governed by the old rules of procedure disputing income tax assessments issued by the respondent for the 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years.
Garon J.T.C.C.:—This motion made by the respondent is for an order:
(a) striking out the reasons stated in paragraphs 35 to 38 of the notice of appeal;
(b) extending the time in which the respondent may file and serve the reply, pursuant to subsection 44(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure);
(c) the costs of this motion; and
(d) any further relief that this Honourable Court deems just.
Tremblay J.T.C.C.:-This appeal was heard on March 30, 1994, in Québec City, Quebec.
The point at issue is whether the appellant was correct