Clark v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] C.T.C. 2292 #1, 75 D.T.C. 187, [1975] C.T.C. 2292 -- text

Roland St-Onge:

1 Upon reading the consent to judgment filed with this Board to the effect that the decision in Richard Robert Easton v. MNR shall be equally binding in these appeals;

2 It is ordered and adjudged that the appeals in respect of the 1972 taxation year be and the same are hereby allowed in accordance with the terms of the consent to judgment filed.

Cooke v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] C.T.C. 2296, 75 D.T.C. 223 -- text

The Chairman (orally: June 20, 1975):

1 This is an appeal by Stewart J Cooke against reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1970 and 1971 taxation years. The point in issue is whether or not the appellant is entitled to deduct his farming losses in their entirety in those years or whether he is limited, within the options of subsection 13(1) of the former Income Tax Act, to the amounts set out therein.

Pollard v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] C.T.C. 2123, 75 D.T.C. 79, [1975] C.T.C. 2094 -- text

A W Prociuk (orally: January 24, 1975):

1 The appellant, E A Pollard, appeals from the respondent's reassessment for the taxation year 1972 wherein the sum of $6,500, less $200 allowed by the respondent for legal costs, was added to the appellant's income and taxed accordingly.

2 The appellant's position is that this sum was a capital receipt in respect of damages sustained by him as a result of his employer wrongfully dismissing him without cause.

R. v. Balmoral Holdings Ltd., 75 DTC 5296, [1975] C.T.C. 397, [1975] C.T.C. 397 #2 (FCTD) -- text

Collier, J (orally):

1 This is an appeal on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Tax Review Board. The facts before the Board are the same as those before this Court. They are set out in an agreed statement (Exhibit 1).

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS