Campbell J.:
1 The primary issue in this case is limited to whether Mr. Fegol can take advantage of a “farm equipment” exemption to obtain relief from a seizure which took place on July 15, 1994 for the purpose of offsetting an outstanding tax debt. Mr. Fegol was unrepresented at the trial and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr. Fraser. Both did a capable job.
Hamlyn T.C.J.:
1 These are appeals for the 1988, 1989 and 1990 taxation years.
2 In computing income for the 1988, 1989 and 1990 taxation years, the Appellant deducted business losses in the amounts of $2,327, $12,460 and $12,431 respectively and deducted professional losses in the amounts of $4,951, $7,014 and $3,189 respectively.
Décary J.A.:
1 This is yet another “reasonable expectation of profit” case, involving what the Tax Court Judge described as:
[...] a unique situation where entrepreneurial parents with substantial means seek to establish a business in the context of their daughter learning how to ride and jump horses leading to the highest of the world's competitive levels.
Lamarre T.C.J.:
1 This is an appeal under the informal procedure from an assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) against the appellant for the 1994 taxation year denying her the non-refundable tax credit for a dependant having an impairment under subsection 118.3(2) of the Income Tax Act (“Act”).
Watson D.J.T.C.:
1 This appeal was heard under the Informal Procedure in London, Ontario, on May 5, 1997.
2 In computing income for the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant deducted the amount of $2,816.94 as other employment expenses. In reassessing the Appellant for this taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reduced the deduction of the expenses in the year to $1,157.97.
Rip T.C.J.:
1 Egbert Andrew Williams has appealed assessments made under the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years on the basis that he be permitted to deduct expenses incurred in the renting of units in a building in which he resided.
Hamlyn T.C.J.:
1 The Appellant in these income tax appeals seeks the determination of a question of law under paragraph 58(1)(a) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).
McArthur T.C.J.:
Tremblay T.C.J.:
1 This appeal was heard under the informal procedure at Montréal, Quebec, on October 21, 1996.
2 According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the point at issue is whether the appellant was correct in claiming amounts of $13,733 for 1992 and $9,263 for 1993 as business losses (ALGA Enterprise).
Sobier T.C.J.:
