Christie J.T.C.C.: - This is an application by Carma Developers Ltd. (the “applicant”) under paragraph 58(1 )(a) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”). It, together with paragraph
Bell J.T.C.C.: — The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the Appellant by Notices of Reassessment dated June 14, 1993 for its 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years disallowing dividend refunds to it as follows:
O’Connor J.T.C.C.: — These appeals were heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia on August 21 and 22, 1995 pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. Written submissions of counsel were subsequently received by this Court, the last dated October 6,
Archambault J.T.C.C.: - This is an appeal by Flexi-Coil Ltd. (Flexi) from income tax assessments by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) for the 1988 and 1989 taxation years. The Minister disallowed part of the amounts deducted by Flexi in
Mogan J.T.C.C.: — The Appellant (Henry Adams) is one of 12 medical doctors whose income tax appeals were heard together on common evidence. The other 11 Appellants whose appeals are determined by these reasons for judgment are (in the numerical
Bowman J.T.C.C.: — This appeal is from an assessment for the appellant’s 1988 taxation year. The sole question is whether the appellant is entitled to treat property sold by it as a “former business property” within the meaning of section 44
Bowman J.T.C.C.: — This appeal is from an assessment for the appellant’s 1990 taxation year. The issue is one of fact. It involves the question whether Mr. Mercier made loans of $21,000, $30,000 and $34,000 to three companies, 379437 Alberta
Beaubier J.T.C.C.: — This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 6, 1995.
The evidence was. contained in an Agreed Statement of Facts which reads as follows:
Dussault J.T.C.C.: — These appeals were heard on common evidence. [1] The case concerns business losses apparently incurred by a company doing business under the corporate name CRAB ENR. (“Crab”) during the fiscal years ending on
Bell J.T.C.C.: — These Reasons for Judgment are representative of a number of Appellants who
