Bowman J.T.C.C.:-These appeals, from reassessments for 1991 and 1992, involve the question whether amounts received by the appellant from the University of Manitoba for a course of lectures given by him are his income or that of his wife’s company.
McArthur J.T.C.C.:-These appeals were heard in Winnipeg, Manitoba with respect to the appellant’s 1985, 1986 and 1989 taxation years.
Bowman J.T.C.C.:-These appeals are from reassessments for the appellant’s 1992 and 1993 taxation years whereby the Minister of National Revenue denied to the appellant a disability tax credit under sections 118.3 and 118.4 of the Income Tax Act.
Kempo J.T.C.C.:-This general procedure appeal concerns the appellant’s 1989 taxation year.
These informal procedure appeals concern Ms. Gagel’s 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years, which deal with whether she is entitled to a child tax credit pursuant to section 122.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 (the
Taylor, J.T.C.C.:-This is an appeal under the informal procedure, heard in Toronto, Ontario on October 31, 1994, against an income tax assessment for the year 1990, in which the respondent denied the claim for a deduction of an amount of $7,500
MacGuigan J.A. (Linden, Robertson, JJ.A., concurring):— Owing to the incoherence of the appellant’s argument, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. We leave open for later consideration, when adequate argument may be available, the larger
Robertson J.A.:-The sole issue in this section 28 application is whether the Tax Court judge erred in holding that expenses incurred in relation to certain cottage properties purchased by the taxpayer for rental purposes were not deductable from income for the
Décary J.A.:—The issue in the Tax Court of Canada was whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of profit during the 1987 and 1988 taxation years from carrying on his profession, the practice of law, so that he could deduct the losses incurred
Bowman J.T.C.C.:—These appeals, from assessments for the 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years, were heard together. They involve a very narrow issue having to do with the deduction of interest. The facts are simple and are not disputed.
