Dubé J.:
1 This income tax appeal is from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated December 29, 1992, dismissing the plaintiff's (“Urbandale”) appeal on the ground that the redevelopment charges in issue are not deductible expenditures under section 9 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) and were not property tax deductible pursuant to subsection 18(2) of the Act.
Tardif T.C.J.:
1 This is an appeal concerning the 1994 taxation year. At the start of the hearing the respondent filed a motion supported by an affidavit, which had been duly served on the appellant.
2 The motion alleged that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant's appeal, since the notice of assessment challenged by the appellant is a notice of assessment that no federal tax is payable.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
1 This motion by the Appellant was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba on March 2, 1998. The motion is that Darren Earn, who is not a counsel, be allowed to represent the Appellant in the conduct of this appeal. It is made pursuant to Rule 30 of the Tax Court of Canada's Rules of General Procedure, which reads,
(1) A party to a proceeding who is under disability or acts in a representative capacity shall be represented by counsel.
Mogan T.C.J.:
1 This is an appeal with respect to the 1993 taxation year in which the Appellant has elected the informal procedure. The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to a tax credit because he supported his wife for part of 1993. The facts are as follows.
Bowie T.C.J.:
Lamarre T.C.J.:
Bowie T.C.J.:
Décary J.A.:
1 These applications for judicial review having been heard together on common evidence, the following reasons will apply to both of them.
Tremblay-Lamer J.:
1 This is an application, brought jointly by the Plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Prodor, and the Defendant, the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to Rule 474 of the Federal Court Rules[FN1: <p>C.R.C.1978, c. 663, as amended.</p>] for a preliminary determination by the Court of a question of law.
Tanasychuk T.O., T.C.C.:
