Bowman J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal from an assessment for the appellant’s 1991 taxation year whereby the Minister of National Revenue denied the appellant’s claim for child care expenses in the amount of $4,000.

Rowe D.J.T.C.C.: — The appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for his 1990 and 1991 taxation years. The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) assessed the appellant in the amounts of $7,972 in 1990 and $8,331 in 1991, in

Teskey J.T.C.C.: The appellant elected to have his appeals heard pursuant to the informal procedure in his Notice of Appeal, wherein he appeals his assessment of income tax for the years 1991 and 1992.

St-Onge J.T.C.C.: — The appeal of Audrey Wilson was heard on the 27th of September 1995 in the City of Vancouver, and the issue is whether she is allowed to claim a disability deduction in her 1992-93 taxation years. In reassessing the

Teskey J.T.C.C.: - Both appellants elected to have the appeals heard pursuant to the informal procedure in their Notice of Appeal, wherein they appeal their assessments of income tax for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

St-Onge J.T.C.C.: — The appeal of Lynn Smith was heard on the 27th of September 1995 in the City of Vancouver, B.C., and the issue is whether the appellant can claim the disability tax credit for her son in her ’93 taxation year.

Teskey J.T.C.C.: — The appellant elected to proceed under the informal procedure in her Notice of Appeal wherein she appealed her assessment of income tax for the years 1988 through to 1993.

Stone J.A.: — By an order of September 29, 1992, the Trial Division dismissed the appellant’s application under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended by S.C. 1985, c. 45, to hold proceedings

Hugessen J.A. (Décary and Robertson, JJ.A., concurring): — We can see no basis for interfering with the Tax Court Judge’s findings of fact which were based on permissible inferences drawn from the evidence before him.

McDonald J.A.: — We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge committed no error in law in deciding the issues before him as he did. We agree with him that a benefit was received by the shareholder and was therefore