Maurice Boisvert:—This appeal concerns the taxation year 1966. It was heard at Montreal, Province of Quebec, on October 19, 1971 under the authority of the Income Tax Act (RSC 1952, c 148) then in effect, by the undersigned, at the time
A J Frost:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment in respect of the appellant’s 1967 taxation year. Upon notice of objection duly signed and filed, the Minister of National Revenue reconsidered the assessment and confirmed it on the ground that net
Maurice Boisvert:—This appeal is from an assessment involving the taxation year 1965.
The Chairman (orally):—The appeal heard was that of the taxpayer Lloyd Nichols against notices of reassessment for the taxation years 1964 and 1965. The facts of this appeal are complicated to some extent, and are fully set out in the Notice of Appeal and
The Chairman:—This appeal was brought by the taxpayer against a notice of reassessment for the taxation year 1968 wherein a deduction of $5,000 claimed in respect of a bad business debt written off in that year was disallowed by the Minister of National Revenue
Lucien Cardin:—This is an income tax appeal from assessments dated June 9, 1970 in respect of the appellant’s 1967 and 1968 taxation years which was heard at Kitchener, Ontario, on March 21, 1971 by Mr J O Weldon, QC, then a member of the Tax Appeal
Maurice Boisvert:—This is an appeal against an assessment dated October 15, 1970, made under the Estate Tax Act.
Maurice Boisvert:—This appeal is from assesments dated December 18, 1967, for the 1965 and 1966 taxation years.
The facts which gave rise to the assessments are clearly set forth in the Notice of Appeal which reads as follows:
Roland St-Onge:—For the same reasons as those given this day in Crédit La Vérendrye Ltée v MNR, the appeals filed by the above-named companies are dismissed, and the assessments upheld as made.
Roland St-Onge:—At the start of the hearing of this appeal at Rouyn, Province of Quebec on April 28, 1971 by the Tax Appeal Board, now the Tax Review Board, it was agreed between the parties that the evidence adduced in this appeal would apply to the
