Collier, J:
1 This appeal was heard on common evidence with the appeal of Antoine Hulmann v. The Queen (p 297). The reasons given in the latter case shall apply in this case.
2 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1966 through 1969 are confirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs.
Cattanach, J:
1 These are appeals from a decision by the Tax Review Board whereby the appeals by the defendant herein to that Board from assessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1970 and 1971 taxation years were allowed.
2 The assessments by the Minister were consequent upon the sale of three properties by the defendant, two of which were situate in the City of Calgary, Alberta, and the third was situate in the City of Edmonton, Alberta.
A W Prociuk (orally: September 20, 1974):
Kerr, J:
1 This relates to an order to show cause, dated August 19, 1974, made by this Court pursuant to Rule 2400 of the Federal Court Rules, which imposed a charge on land or interest in land of the defendant more fully described in the said order.
A W Prociuk (orally: February 24, 1975):
1 The appellant, Marcel Provost, appeals from the respondent's notices of reassessment dated May 10, 1973 wherein certain expenses claimed by him in the taxation years 1969, 1970 and 1971 were disallowed on the ground that he was not entitled to such deductions by reason of his employment. The amounts disallowed are as follows: for the year 1969 $1,383.64; for the year 1970 $2,311.90; for the year 1971 $1,979.06.
Hamlyn T.C.J.:
1 The Appellant, James Mihelakos, appeals from an assessment of his 1988 taxation year in which the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed his income tax liability by:(a) including in taxable income the amount of $40,000 as the Appellant's portion of a taxable capital gain of a partnership; and
(b) allowing a net capital loss of $19,237 on the disposition of an interest in a partnership.
Rip T.C.J.:
Bonner, T.C.J.:
Lamarre Proulx T.C.J.:
1 The Appellant is appealing by way of the informal procedure the reassessments of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years.
2 The question at issue is whether the Appellant was carrying on a rental operation the principal purpose of which was to make a profit, or in other words, a rental operation which was a genuine commercial undertaking.
Rip T.C.J.:
