Bowman J.T.C.C.: — This appeal is from an assessment for the appellant’s 1993 taxation year. The issue is whether the appellant must include, in the computation of capital gains realized by him on property sold in 1993, the entire gain realized

Teskey J.T.C.C.: — Hamechandra Ramdeyall (the “husband”) and Parbitri Ramdeyall (the “wife”) are spouses of one another. The husband appeals his assessments of income tax for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The wife appeals her assessments of income

Brulé J.T.C.C.: — What concerns me, Mr. Sarna, is this that what happens by you’re saying there was a partnership which we don’t have evidence of, that’s one side of the story, and I’m prepared just to ignore that for the moment,

Beaubier J.T.C.C.: — This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 13, 1996 pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court. The only evidence was portions of an examination for discovery of the Appellant’s representative which were

Bowie J.T.C.C.: — The Appellant is a retired school teacher. Under the auspices of the Small Business Development Corporations Act of Ontario (hereafter called the “Act”) he also became an entrepreneur. The first venture

Beaubier J.T.C.C.: - This matter was heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick on February 13, 1996. The assumptions of the Minister of National Revenue were acknowledged to be correct. The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. The amount of tax

Beaubier J.T.C.C.: — This matter was heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick on February 14, 1996. The Appellant was the only witness.

Bowman J.T.C.C.: — These are appeals instituted from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the years 1989 and 1990. The point at issue concerns the appellant’s right to deduct the amounts of $9,412 in 1989

Mogan J.T.C.C.: — The Appellant and Julia Denelzen (“Julia”) were married in 1960. They separated in 1984 and Julia commenced divorce proceedings in 1985. They each obtained independent legal advice. The Appellant retained John G. Walsh and Julia retained

Margeson J.T.C.C.: — The question for the Court is whether or not the Appellant, Zale Chapel, is entitled to a share of the losses claimed in the years 1989 and 1990, which losses allegedly were suffered by him as a limited partner