Her Majesty The Queen v. Nomad Sand and Gravel Limited, 91 DTC 5032, [1991] 1 CTC 60 (FCA) -- text

Urie, J.A.:—The appellant appeals from a decision of Rouleau, J. in the Trial Division [[1987] 2 C.T.C. 112; 87 D.T.C. 5343] in which he dismissed the appel- lant’s appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board rendered in 1987 [[1982] C.T.C. 2035; 82

Lornport Investments Limited v. Her Majesty The Queen and Project Construction Limited v. Her Majesty The Queen, 91 DTC 5044, [1991] 1 CTC 57 (FCTD) -- text

Rouleau, J.:—These matters came before me as motions set down pursuant to Rule 474 of the Federal Court Rules for determination of a question of law. The two cases were heard together and consequently, this order will apply to both.

Thelma Arlene Greenwood and Elgin Evan Coutts, Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Sidney fireenwood, Deceased v. Her Majesty The Queen, 90 DTC 6690, [1991] 1 CTC 47 (FCTD) -- text

Reed, J.:—The issue in this case is very narrow: were the shares of Haney- Greenwood Limited transferred, on Mr. Greenwood's death, to a spousal trust for his wife's benefit and indefeasibly vested therein. If the answer is yes, subsection 70(6) of the

Jerome Mitchell Hanson v. John Edward Smith and Her Majesty the Queen, [1991] 1 CTC 32, 90 DTC 6670 -- text

Cullen, J.:—Once again this Court and counsel for the defendants are faced with an unenviable situation—a plaintiff not represented by counsel although he did indicate he had received some direction and advice from a lawyer. The pace of the trial was inhibited by

Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company v. Her Majesty The Queen, 91 DTC 5038, [1991] 1 CTC 28 (FCTD), aff'd 92 DTC 6191 (FCA) -- text

Reed, J.:—The main issue in this case is the proper interpretation of an amendment made to paragraph 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 140, subsection 4(1) and whether that amendment is relevant to the

Snell Farms Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen, 90 DTC 6693, [1991] 1 CTC 5 (FCTD) -- text

Cullen, J.:—This case, on appeal from the Tax Court of Canada, concerns whether the profit realized by the plaintiff/appellant in its 1976 taxation year on the sale of certain Alberta farmland constitutes a capital gain or income from business or property.

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS