Gerald a Posen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2435, [1978] DTC 1344 -- text

The Assistant Chairman:—When the appellant, a medical practitioner practising his profession in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, filed his 1975 income tax return he claimed as a deduction in arriving at his net income, the sum of

Otto John Rath v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2425, [1978] DTC 1327 -- text

The Assistant Chairman:—When Dr Rath (the “appellant”) filed his 1974 income tax return he claimed as “other deductions” in computing his net income for that year, the sum of $52,869.19. This amount was explained somewhat in a form attached to

Kenneth L Easton v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2416, [1978] DTC 1347 -- text

A W Prociuk (orally: November 14, 1977):—The appellant, Dr Kenneth L Easton, formerly of Mississauga, Ontario, appeals from the respondent’s reassessment for the taxation years 1971, 1972 and 1973, wherein the respondent made certain adjustments and additions to

Paul Laurent v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2412, [1978] DTC 1311 -- text

The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:—This is an appeal by Mr Paul Laur- rent against a tax assessment for the 1974 taxation year, by which the respondent disallowed a deduction in the amount of $5,453.01 which the taxpayer, when calculating his income, had

Joachim Santarossa. Marino Santarossa and Joseph Santarossa v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2390, [1978] DTC 1294 -- text

Delmer E Taylor:—These appeals concern the 1973 taxation year and deal with two issues—the first is common to all three appellants, and the second applies only to Joseph Santarossa. On the first issue, the respondent has assessed to income tax

Transcontinental Timber Company Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] CTC 2388, [1978] DTC 1292 -- text

A W Prociuk (orally: November 16, 1977):—The appellant corporation appeals from the respondent’s reassessment of its income for the taxation year 1973 wherein an amount of $95,000, which the appellant received and treated as capital, was added back to

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS