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”).
Watson D.J.T.C.:
1 This appeal, heard under the Informal Procedure in St. John's, Newfoundland on October 3, 1997, concerns the Appellant's 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years.
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;
Brulé T.C.J.:
1 These appeals, heard on common evidence, were as a result of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowing business expenses claimed by the Appellants against their personal income in the taxation year 1993.
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
1 This appeal is governed by the informal procedure provided for under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The year under review is 1994.
2 The issues are whether the appellant is liable for interest under subsection 161(2) and to a penalty under section 163.1 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”).
Strayer J.A.:
1 We are all of the view that the decision of the Tax Court Judge must be set aside and the matter remitted to that Court for a new hearing.
Beaubier T.C.J.:
1 This appeal, pursuant to the Informal Procedure, was heard at Calgary, Alberta on February 27, 1998. The assumptions in the Reply read as follows,
In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
(a) Trisha is the Appellant's daughter;
(b) Trisha's date of birth is July 31, 1977;
(c) Trisha is dependent on the Appellant by reason of mental or physical infirmity;
Bell T.C.J.:
1 The issue is whether the Appellant, a director of Conpour Services Ltd. (“Conpour”), is liable under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for taxes required to be deducted and remitted to the Receiver General for Canada by Conpour.
Bowman T.C.J.:
1 These appeals are from assessments for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years. They involve a narrow question of law concerning the effect on a provision of the Income Tax Act of a deeming provision in a provincial statute.
