Marceau J.A.:
1 This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a ruling made by a Tax Court of Canada judge on a motion for an order requiring the Crown to produce documents for discovery in the course of the appellant's appeal proceedings against a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of its 1992 income tax liability.
Brulé T.C.J.:
1 The appellant, Multiview Inc. is appealing a reassessment of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) whereby the Minister disallowed the appellant's claim for the refundable Scientific Research & Experimental Development (“SR & ED”) credit in the amount of $505,830.00 in the 1994 taxation year.
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
1 The issue to be determined is whether this Court has jurisdiction to extend the time within which Nasha Properties Ltd. (“Nasha”) may serve on the Minister of National Revenue (“the Minister”) Notices of Objection to assessments of liability for income tax in respect of its 1987 and 1988 taxation years.
Tremblay T.C.J.:
1 This appeal was heard at Québec City, Quebec, on January 15, 1997. The last written argument was filed on April 14, 1997.
Gibson J.:
1 The applicant seeks judicial review of a notice of assessment of excise duty, penalties and interest, as amended, made against it pursuant to the Excise Act.The original notice of assessment is dated the 30th of May, 1996. It was amended the 16th of July, 1996 and further amended the 15th of November, 1996. The relief requested is that the assessment, as amended, be declared invalid or unlawful and that it be quashed or set aside. In addition, the applicant seeks costs.
Couture C.J.T.C.:
1 This appeal was heard in Montreal on July 18, 1997. The appellant had elected to proceed under the rules which govern the Informal Procedure.
2 Mr. Déom Schulman who represents himself as a business consultant acted as agent for the appellant while Ms. Nathalie Lessard represented the respondent.
Tremblay T.C.J.:
1 According to the Notice of Appeal and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the question is whether the appellant's earned income for the purposes of deducting child care expenses was correctly set at $1,360, and consequently whether the sum of $907 was correctly deducted in calculating the appellant's income for child care expenses for the 1995 taxation year.
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
1 This is an appeal by way of the informal procedure for the 1995 taxation year. The question at issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to claim the wholly dependent person tax credit provided for in paragraph 118(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for his children, when he is entitled to a deduction under paragraph 60(b), (c) or (c. 1).
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
1 The appellant is appealing the assessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) for the 1992 taxation year, under the informal procedure.
