Beaubier T.C.J.:

1 This appeal, pursuant to the informal procedure, was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 6th, 1997. The Appellant was the only witness.

Chevalier D.J.:

1 These are appeals from two judgments, the first by Pinard J. (file no. A-464-93) in The Queen v. Mercantile Bank of Canada et al.,and the second by Nation J. (file no. A-607-94) in Minister of National Revenue v. National Bank of Canada,which were heard jointly on appeal.

Tardif T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal from a notice of confirmation dated February 20, 1995, of an assessment made on October 6, 1994. The reassessment resulted from the refusal by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) to allow the moving expenses claimed by the appellant for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years.

O'Connor T.C.J.:

1 These appeals were heard at Toronto, Ontario on November 19, 1997 pursuant to the Informal Procedure of this Court. Testimony was given by Mr. Egger and several exhibits were filed by both parties.

Bell T.C.J.:

Issue:

1 The issue is whether the Appellant, a land developer, is liable for tax in respect of the supply of real property building lots to certain purchasers. The issue will be resolved by the interpretation of subsection 336(1) of the Excise Tax Act (the “Act”), Part IX, which reads as follows:

Where

• (a) a taxable supply by way of sale of real property is made to a person, and

Bowie T.C.J.:

1 Mr. Salahi, it is not my problem to reassess you nor is it my duty to reassess you. I am bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Njenga[FN1: <p><em>Njenga v. R.</em>(1996), [1997] 2 C.T.C. 8 (Fed. C.A.).</p>] case and in that case the trial judge found that the Appellant's testimony was not credible. He characterized the receipts as a sorry lot.

Bowie T.C.J.:

Reed J.:

1 The actions in T-47-91 and T-1134-90 were scheduled to be heard, one after the other, starting on December 1, 1997. At the commencement of the hearing of T-47-91, it was decided that an order should issue that the two actions be heard together on common evidence.

Bowman T.C.J.:

1 At the conclusion of argument counsel asked for an opportunity of speaking to the matter of costs. After I rendered my reasons for judgment, dismissing the appeals, I invited counsel to do so and the matter was dealt with by telephone conference.

Christie A.C.J.T.C.:

1 This appeal was heard under the informal procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The year under appeal is 1993.