Tardif T.C.J.:

1 These are appeals from notices of assessment for the 1992 and 1993 taxation years. The Minister relied on subsections 15(2) and 248(1) of the Income Tax Act as amended and as applicable when the reassessment, which is the subject of these appeals, was issued.

2 Only the appellant testified. He gave a brief account of his career path, indicating that he had worked for Revenue Canada for seven years.

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

1 These are appeals for the 1993 and 1995 taxation years.

2 I am reading directly from the Reply to the Notice of Appeal as the preliminary steps leading up to these appeals:

4. In computing income for the 1993 and 1995 taxation years, the Appellant failed to include benefits in the amounts of $1,350.00 and $960.00, respectively, received from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the “Employer”).

Archambault T.C.J.:

1 The Honourable Kenneth Mackay is appealing a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) with respect to the 1993 taxation year. The notice of reassessment of November 6, 1995 shows a balance due of $2,052. However, the basis of the objection to the reassessment is not altogether clear.

Léger D.J.T.C.:

1 This appeal was heard at Edmundston, New Brunswick on July 19, 1996. This is an appeal from a notice of reassessment relating to the 1993 taxation year made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on December 15, 1994 and disallowing the appellant's deduction of medical expenses in the amount of $4,530.32. The Court asked for written comments from the parties to be submitted by October 1, 1996.

Reed J.:

1 The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim inventory allowances with respect to certain goods for the years 1978-86 and investment tax credits for the years 1983-1987. The relevant legislative provisions are paragraph 20(1)(gg) and section 127 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended (the “Act”).

Giles A.S.P.:

1 By the motion before me, the defendants seek to strike the Statement of Claim under Rule 419(1)(a) on the grounds that this Court does not have jurisdiction. The plaintiff has responded seeking to strike the Notice of Motion on the grounds that a motion to strike for lack of jurisdiction should be brought under Rule 401, and also alleging that a motion under Rule 401 should be brought before a judge and not before a prothonotary.

Hamlyn T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal with respect to the 1993 taxation year.

2 In computing income for the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant deducted the amount of $45,462.00 as moving expenses.

3 In reassessing the Appellant for the 1993 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the deduction of moving expenses in the amount of $9,536.00 to the Appellant.

Bowman T.C.J.:

1 This is an appeal, Mr. Druce from assessments from the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years. The issue boils down to deductibility as a business expense of the sum of $22,771.26. This is a very, very sad case.

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:

1 The Appellant has filed a Notice of Appeal by way of the informal procedure for the years 1994 and 1995.