St-Onge J.T.C.C.:-The appeals of Universal Terminal Ltd. and Universal Fuel Ltd. came before me on October 26 and 27, 1994 in the City of Montreal, P.Q., and both counsel agreed that they should be held in common evidence.
Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:-These appeals were heard on common evidence. The years under appeal are the appellants’ 1990 and 1991 taxation years.
Mogan J.T.C.C.:-On September 14, 1982, the appellant entered into a three-page agreement with Martin Yachts Ltd. of Vancouver under which the appellant was granted the right to distribute the "Martin 242" sailboat in the Province of Ontario using the
Kempo J.T.C.C.:-This is a motion brought by Kamal Mydean for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 27(2) of the Federal Court
Rip J.T .C.C.:-The issue in this appeal (informal procedure) from an assessment for 1992 is whether Werner J. Krampl, the appellant, received a benefit of $25,000 pursuant to paragraph 6(1 )(a) and subsection 6(15) of the Income Tax
Lamarre J.T.C.C.:-This appeal arises out of a disallowance by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister”) of the deduction of noncapital losses in the amounts of $110,350 and $104,561 claimed by the appellant for the 1987 and 1988 taxation years
Christie A.C.J.T.C.C.:-The years under appeal are 1986 and 1988. The essential background to these appeals are set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the notice of appeal and paragraphs 1 to 4 of the reply to the notice of appeal. They read:
Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:-This appeal was heard on common evidence with the following appeals: Wing Hon Ng, 89-1970; Jean Lambert, 89-2932; Marcelle Thériault, 89-2933; André Gagnon, 89-2934; André Godin, 89-2936; René Brochu, 89-2938; Raymond Laflamme, 89-2941; Laurien
Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.:-These appeals were heard on common evidence. With respect to the appellants 528061 Ontario Limited ("528061") and 528062 Ontario Limited ("528062"), there are two issues. The first one is whether expenses shown in the "shop expenses account" and the "suspense expenses account" were properly disallowed as not having been incurred for the purpose of producing income but incurred for personal purposes. The second issue is whether the penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C.
Mogan J.T.C.C.:—This appeal relates to a claim for what is called the disability tax credit provided for in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the ’’Act”). I will deal with
