Bell J.T.C.C.: — The Applicant made a motion for an order under Rule 93(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for an order naming Mr. Glen Niemi (“Niemi”) as the Respondent’s nominee to be

Rowe J.T.C.C.: — The appellant was assessed a late filing penalty in respect of his 1993 income tax return and appealed on the basis that he had utilized the services of an agent and had done everything possible to ensure that the

Bell J.T.C.C.: — These reasons for judgment apply to David Storrie, Alfred D. Storrie and Kevin Storrie (each referred to as “Appellant”), all three of whom were directors of Argyle Masonry Ltd. (“Argyle”) during the period for which the assessments

Archambault J.T.C.C.: — Dissension reigned in 1979 among the four shareholders of Les Industries S.L.M. Inc. (“S.L.M.”), all of whose capital stock was held in equal parts by four investment companies. One of these investment companies, Gestion Prego Inc.

McArthur J.T.C.C.: — This appeal was heard February 19, 1996, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The issues are whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount of $80,000 pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the

Sarchuk J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal by Janice Halligan from assessments of tax with respect to the 1990 and 1991 taxation years.

Lammare Proulx J.: The appellant instituted an appeal from the reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on March 30, 1987, for the appellant’s 1983 taxation year. The reassessment involves the application of subsection 55(2)

Sobier J.T.C.C.: —

These appeals were heard under the informal procedure of this Court.

Archambault J.T.C.C.: — The Appellant is appealing under the Informal Procedure from an income tax assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) for the 1993 taxation year. The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to a tax credit

Taylor J.T.C.C.: — These are appeals heard in Ottawa, Ontario on March 19, 1996 against income tax assessments for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 in which the Respondent disallowed claims for losses in the amounts of $11,086.33, $7,283.29 and