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).

Kimmel v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] C.T.C. 2045, 75 D.T.C. 59 -- text

Roland St-Onge:

1 This appeal is from a reassessment dated May 10, 1973 with respect to the 1968 taxation year.

2 The appeal came before me on January 30, 1975 at the City of Ottawa, Ontario. At the hearing the parties agreed that the evidence and arguments in the present appeal would also apply to the appeals of Saul Leese, Arnold A Portigal, Morris Schachnow and Jack Rabinovitch.

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS