Maplesden v. Minister of National Revenue, [1998] 2 C.T.C. 162, (sub nom. Maplesden v. R.) 98 D.T.C. 6039 -- text

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.

RMM Canadian Enterprises Inc. v. R., [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2103, 97 D.T.C. 420 -- text

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.

Sherway Centre Ltd. v. R., [1998] 2 C.T.C. 343, (sub nom. R. v. Sherway Centre Ltd.) 98 D.T.C. 6121 -- text

McDonald J.A.:

1 This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada permitting the Respondent to deduct payments described as “participatory interest” in an issue of bonds pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(e) of the Income Tax Act[FN1: <p>R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.).</p>] .

Del Zotto v. Canada, 97 DTC 5328, [1997] 3 C.T.C. 199 (FCA) -- text

MacGuigan J.A. (Henry D.J.):

1 This case involves a constitutional challenge to the “inquiry provision,” s. 231.4 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended (“the Act”), on the basis of ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”).

Lussier v. R., [1998] 2 C.T.C. 2794 -- text

Tardif T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal under the informal procedure regarding notices of assessment for 1991 and 1992. The applicable statutory provisions are ss. 3, 9, 13, 152, 248(1) and 20(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”).

2 The facts on which the assessments are based are set out in paragraph 6 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as follows:

[TRANSLATION]
  • (a) the appellant is a notary;

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS