Robertson J.A.:—The respondent is a "Class 1” farmer who in 1987 transferred all his farmin assets to a company incorporated for the purpose of facilitating a "rollover" to his son on the former's death. Simply stated, the issue raised on this
Mahoney J.A.:—This is an appeal from a reported decision of the Tax Court of Canada (Schwartz v. Canada, [1993] 2 C.T.C. 2125, 93 D.T.C. 555), which allowed the respondent's appeal against the inclusion in his 1989 taxable income
Joyal, J.:—These consolidated appeals by the appellant against a number of tax reassessments raise a number of factual and legal issues and, in the course of the trial and of later interventions, have caused counsel for the parties and their witnesses to marshal much evidence and considerable argument. After all this, however, the parties will concede that there is not much conflict on the facts and debate centres generally on the application of various income tax rules to these facts.
Hugessen, J.A. (McDonald agreeing):—The question raised by this appeal is whether a transaction which is structured in such a way that it cannot possibly produce a trading profit may nonetheless be an adventure in the nature of trade. More
Reed, J.:—The defendant is a trader in commodity futures. The transactions to which the present case relates are the purchase and sale of actual physical quantities of gold and silver bullion.
Joyal, J.:—The Court is seized of three appeals by way of statements of claim from reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue for each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.
Giles, A.S.P.:—This is one of three associated current files involving David Brough and Satellite Earth Technology Inc. This file involves an income tax appeal.
Hugessen, J.A.:—We are not satisfied that the trial judge erred in law. The provisions (now repealed) of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, which were in issue are clear and unambiguous; the manner in which they were
Pinard, J.:—This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of National Revenue denying the applicants’ request pursuant to subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, C. 63) (the "Act") for the waiver of interest. The applicants specifically request: (a) a writ of certiorari, to quash and/or set aside the Minister’s decision: and
Wetston J.:—This is an appeal in the form of an action pursuant to subsections 172(2) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the “Act’’), brought by the taxpayer Ross J.
