Mogan T.C.J.:

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

Bowie T.C.J.:

Robertson J.A.:

Muldoon J.:

1 There is no better way of establishing the pertinent facts in litigation then by repeating verbatim the parties agreed statement of facts. Here it is:

THE PARTIES, by their respective solicitors, agree upon the facts set out herein, subject to their relevance to the issues herein and their weight being determined by the Court.

A. History of the Appeals

Tremblay T.C.J.:

1 These appeals were heard on common evidence pursuant to the informal procedure at Québec, Quebec on January 11, 1996.

1. Point at Issue

2 According to the notices of appeal and the replies to the notices of appeal, the issue is whether the appellants were correct in claiming together for the 1990 and 1991 taxation years rental losses of $3,508 in 1990 and $2,089 in 1991, that is $1,754 each in 1990 and $1,044 in 1991.

Tardif T.C.J.:

1 The two appeals were heard on common evidence. These are appeals brought from assessments made by the respondent on October 19, 1993 and confirmed on June 9, 1995. The respondent relied on sections 3, 9, 10, 38, 39, 40 and 54 and subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).

McArthur T.C.J.:

1 This appeal is from an assessment for the 1994 taxation year and involves a claim for a deduction for a clergyman's residence pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Tremblay T.C.J.:

1 This appeal was heard under the informal procedure at Montréal, Quebec on April 29, 1997.

1. Point at issue

2 According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the point at issue is whether the appellant is well founded to claim the amount of $719.61 (17% of $4,233) for a disability amount transferred from a dependant other than his spouse for each taxation year 1993 and 1994 respectively.

Tremblay T.C.J.:

1 This appeal was heard under the informal procedure at Montréal, Quebec on November 17, 1995.

1. Point at Issue

2 According to the notice of appeal and the reply to the notice of appeal, the point at issue is whether the parcel of lot P-339 situated in the City of Laval which the appellant disposed of during its 1989 taxation year was inventory property.