John P Vincent v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2246, 72 DTC 1206 -- text

J O Weldon:—This appeal of the appellant John P Vincent (“Vincent”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated December 11, 1970 and that of James F McDonald (“McDonald”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated March 4, 1971 with respect to their 1966 taxation years

James F McDonald v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2243, 72 DTC 1204 -- text

J O Weldon:—This appeal of the appellant James F McDonald (“McDonald”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated March 4, 1971 and that of John P Vincent (“Vincent”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated December 11, 1970 with respect to their 1966 taxation years and

James Foster Irwin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2239, 72 DTC 1201 -- text

J O Weldon:—This appeal of the appellant James Foster Irwin (“Irwin”) initiated by Notice of Appeal dated June 9, 1970 with respect to his 1965 and 1966 taxation years and those of the appellants James F McDonald (“McDonald”) and John P Vincent (“Vincent”)

Edward D Arnold, Jr v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2235, 72 DTC 1199 -- text

A J Frost:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment dated August 6, 1969 in respect of the appellant’s 1968 taxation year wherein a claim for alimony and maintenance amounting to $7,500 was disallowed as not coming within the meaning of paragraph 11

Estate of Stanley Donald Stankievech v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2232, 72 DTC 1231 -- text

A J Frost:—This is an appeal from an assessment dated May 30, 1968 wherein estate tax in the sum of $15,164.66 was levied on the aggregate taxable value of the property passing on the death of Stanley Donald Stankievech, which occurred on July 15, 1965.

Ross P Alger and Paul a Ferner in Trust for the Children of Sam Hashman v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2227, 72 DTC 1191 -- text

W O Davis:—The appellants herein have appealed from assessments to income tax for the taxation years 1966 and 1967 dated December 9 and 23, 1969, respectively. The issue in respect of both years concerns the correct interpretation of subsections (2), (4), (7) and

Pages

Subscribe to Tax Interpretations RSS