Date: 20020330
Dockets: 2000-1817-IT-G, 2000-1818-IT-G
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL R. BOSSY,
MICHAEL EVANS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] These appeals pursuant to the General Procedure were heard together on common evidence at London, Ontario on March 19 and 20, 2002. Both Appellants testified. They are both chartered accountants. Suzanne Walker, C.M.A., the auditor on these files, testified for the Respondent.
[2] Both appeals arise from reassessments of the Appellants' 1993 income tax returns in which they each reported the sale of 188,000 Class C preferred shares of Thomson, Fisher & Bossy Management Consultants Inc. ("TF & B") on capital account and claimed a capital gains deduction in respect thereto. In fact, the "sale" of shares consisted of a redemption of the shares by TF & B.
[3] Although the numbers of the following paragraphs differ in each Reply, their wording is identical. Paragraphs 10 to 17 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal of Michael R. Bossy read:
10. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on, inter alia, the following assumptions:
(a) Grandview Motors Inc. ("Grandview") was an automobile dealership located in Parkhill, Ontario.
(b) Mr. Stan Fisher, a partner of Thomson, Fisher & Bossy Chartered Accountants (a Canadian partnership of which the taxpayer was a partner), acquired control of Grandview Motors on or about July 1988. At that time, the business had accumulated significant non-capital losses ($945,820) which it had been unable to utilize for tax purposes by reason of its continuing losses.
(c) Commencing in 1990, Grandview began to provide management consulting services to clients of Thomson, Fisher & Bossy Chartered Accountants ("the CA partnership").
(d) By the end of April 1991, the automobile dealership business of Grandview had completely ceased.
(e) All remaining inventories of the automobile dealership were disposed of by the end of 1991.
(f) An agreement with an effective date of January 1, 1991 was executed between the CA partnership and Grandview whereby the management consulting and some other portions of the business conducted by the CA partnership would be officially transferred to Grandview.
(g) On October 21, 1991, the name of the corporation was changed from Grandview Motors Inc. to Thomson, Fisher & Bossy Management Consultants Ltd. ("TF & B").
(h) On October 21, 1991, debt owed to Mr. Fisher from Grandview Motors was converted to equity in the form of 564,000 Class "C" shares of the company having a price of $1.00/share.
(i) On the same day as the transaction referred to in (h) above, the same Class "C" shares of the company were sold to Messrs. John Thomson, Michael Bossy & Michael Evans, ("other partners" in the CA partnership with Stan Fisher).
(j) The value of the shares at the time of sale to the other partners was calculated by Mr. Stan Fisher as follows:
|
Loss carried forward face amount (approx.) |
$1,300,000 |
|
Tax Rate |
50% |
|
Tax Savings |
$ 650,000 |
|
Less: Bank Indebtedness |
$ 200,000 |
|
$ 450,000 |
|
|
Divided Among 3 Investors |
$ 150,000 |
|
Premium provided to Investors for risk being taken |
$ 38,000 |
|
Face Value of Shares Issues |
$ 188,000 |
(k) In consideration of Messrs. Thomson, Bossy & Evans executing personal guarantees in favour of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") with respect to indebtedness between TF & B and the CIBC, Mr. Stan Fisher transferred 188,000 Class C shares to each of Messrs. Thomson, Bossy and Evans.
(l) TF & B filed its 1991 T2 income tax return reporting a net income of $141,330 for tax purposes. Non-capital losses from the pool referred to in (b) above were applied to eliminate all taxes of this income.
(m) Throughout the period between the acquisition of the shares by the other partners and the redemption of the shares in 1993, the only business conducted by TF & B was the management consulting business specified in the agreement with the CA partnership.
(n) The management consulting services of TF & B were provided by the same partners and employees who had provided these services on behalf of the CA partnership.
(o) TF & B filed T2 returns for 1992 and 1993 showing nil net income for tax purposes and although it showed the activity of the corporation as "inactive", it was active in the management consulting business during the 1992 and 1993 taxation years.
(p) In 1993, TF & B redeemed the shares for $1.00/share, their stated value ($564,000 in aggregate).
(q) The Appellant reported the redemption of his shares as dispositions of small business corporation shares and other securities and properties and claimed taxable capital gains of $140,999 for tax purposes. ($188,000 redemption proceeds less $1.00 nominal cost times 75% capital gains inclusion rate).
(r) The Appellant also claimed a capital gains deduction for the full amount of taxable capital gain referred to in (q) above.
(s) At the time of acquisition of the Class "C" shares, the Appellant knew the profitable management consulting business of the CA partnership had been transferred to TF & B, a loss corporation.
(t) The Appellant acquired the shares for the provision of a loan guarantee to allow TF & B to continue business operations.
(u) The profits generated by TF & B came solely from the profitable management consulting business.
(v) The profits from this profitable business provided TF & B with resources first to discharge the debts to CIBC, the to pay dividends on the Class "C" shares and then to redeem the Class "C" shares.
(w) TF & B paid dividends during a 24 month holding period in order to be eligible for an enhanced capital gains deduction.
(x) The operating motivation for the acquisition of the Class "C" shares was to utilize the losses of TF & B.
(y) The Appellant's profit from the sale of the Class "C" shares was on income account;
B. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
11. The issue to be decided are:
(a) whether the Appellant's profit from the sale of the Property was on capital or income account, and
(b) whether the Minister acted with due dispatch.
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELIED ON
12. He relies on sections 3, 4, 9 and 38, subsections 165(3) and 248(1) and paragraphs 39(1)(a) and 110.6(2.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the "Act").
D. GROUNDS RELIED ON AND RELIEF SOUGHT
13. He submits that the Class "C" shares of TF & B were not acquired by the Appellant as an investment, but were acquired to provide a personal guarantee on behalf of TF & B".
14. He submits that the series of events surrounding the acquisition and redemption of the Class "C" shares constitute an adventure in the nature of trade and are taxable as profit from a business.
15. He submits that the Minister properly assessed the Appellant in accordance with sections 3 and 9 of the Act on the basis that the profit from the sale of the Class "C" shares was income from a business within the meaning of subsection 248(1) of the Act, in the Appellant's 1983 [sic] taxation year and, also for this reason, he submits that the Minister correctly disallowed the capital gains deduction claimed by the Appellant in his 1993 taxation year.
16. He submits that the Minister acted in accordance with his duty under subsection 165(3) of the Act.
17. He further submits that if the Minister failed to act "with due dispatch", which is not admitted but denied, the reassessment should not be vacated given that the Appellant had recourse is to appeal to the Tax Court.
[4] With respect to the assumptions in subparagraphs (a) to (u) inclusive, the following exceptions must be noted:
(f) & (m)
There is no direct testimony from the Appellants which contradicts assumptions (h), (i), and (s). Together, they establish that the Appellants transferred their interests in the consulting business to TF & B on October 21, 1991, as part of the deal in exchange for their Class C shares, which were then valued at $188,000 for each. The agreements backdated January 1, 1991 confirmed the transfer of that business from the CA partnership to Grandview, which changed its name to "TF & B". TF & B then shared the costs of the premises and staff with the CA partnership pursuant to a written agreement between the parties dated as of January 1, 1991.
(k) Was amended as quoted by the Respondent's counsel at the opening of the hearing and those facts were established by the evidence to be true.
(v) The word "the" following the comma in the third line appears to be a typographical error; it should read "then".
With these amendments, assumptions (a) to (v) inclusive were not refuted by the evidence.
[5] The Appellants' chartered accounting partnership (CA partnership) at the times in question was under one name with the following partners in the following Ontario towns and city:
Mr. Thomson: Apparently London
Mr. Fisher: Parkhill
Mr. Bossy: Tilsonburg
Mr. Evans London
[6] Mr. Bossy became a chartered accountant in 1982. Mr. Evans became a chartered accountant in 1985. In 1985 both were partners in the CA partnership with Stan Fisher and Mr. Thomson. In June, 1990 their partner Stan Fisher presented Mr. Evans with a Deloitte Touche letter which had attached Mr. Fisher's "Business Opportunity" outline of seven pages that proposed a transaction with Grandview Motors shares (Exhibit A-1, Tab 1). Mr. Evans rejected it both for himself and for his clients as being too aggressive for tax purposes. It constituted a rough outline of what became the transaction in question before the Court in these appeals. Assumption (j) is an outline of Mr. Fisher's numbers in Exhibit A-1, Tab 1.
[7] Commencing in October, 1990, the partnership was actively reviewing the possibility of using a corporation for its management consulting work. By the end of 1990 Mr. Evans knew from documents he had reviewed and from talks with Mr. Fisher that Fisher was "tapped out"; he had a second mortgage on his home and he had withdrawn all of his capital from their partnership. By April of 1991 Mr. Evans knew that Mr. Fisher was considering bankruptcy. In April of 1991 Mr. Fisher brought the "Business Opportunity" to the partnership meeting. In May, 1991 another partner, Mr. Thomson, advised Mr. Bossy that Mr. Fisher was in imminent danger of receiving a demand on his guarantee with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") on behalf of Grandview Motors. By this time Mr. Fisher was the sole shareholder of Grandview Motors. Mr. Thomson stated that if CIBC made the demand, Mr. Fisher would have to go bankrupt.
[8] The two Appellants described different reasons for proceeding with the transaction under appeal:
Mr. Bossy stated
1. Mr. Bossy had signed an unlimited guarantee for the CA partnership debt of $500,000. Mr. Bossy believed that his guarantee would be demanded upon and that this would ruin him, if Mr. Fisher went bankrupt;
2. If the consulting business was operated by TF & B, the taxes saved from Grandview Motors' loss could be used to help the business purchase assets; and
that is why Mr. Bossy signed the guarantee and acquired the Class C shares. Mr. Bossy acquired his Class C shares in the fall of 1991.
Mr. Evans stated
1. Mr. Fisher's bankruptcy would hurt the CA partnership's reputation and would end Mr. Fisher's contributions to the firm's profits as a C.A.;
2. Mr. Evan's profits from the CA firm's business would be reduced;
3. The consulting fees would be sheltered as income by virtue of the loss carry forward in TF & B; and
that is why Mr. Evans signed the guarantee and acquired the Class C shares. Mr. Evans acquired his Class C shares on October 21, 1991.
[9] Both Appellants testified that at the time of acquiring the Class C shares they understood all of the tax nuances of the transaction, including the requirements necessary for a share redemption such as occurred in their cases. Mr. Bossy testified that he thought that redemption might occur when he finally retired. Mr. Evans testified that he thought redemption on this basis was remote - that he might get the money for the shares if TF & B had enough business.
[10] At the end of 1991 both Appellants received a copy of a financial statement of TF & B prepared by Mr. Fisher which confirmed what he had told them when they entered into the transaction: TF & B's only liabilities were debts of $190,000 to CIBC and other accounts payable of $54,666 (Exhibit A-1, Tab 35). Commencing in late 1990, TF & B proceeded to do the consulting work that the CA partnership no longer did. Thus, it is clear that once the parties transferred the consulting business for the shares on October 21, 1991, they backdated both the management agreements to January 1, 1991, and backdated the inclusion of TF & B's consulting income to include consulting income earned in 1990. By the summer of 1993 it had paid off the $190,000 and the $54,666. In addition, it paid the Class C shareholders' dividends of six percent per annum for 1992 and 1993.
[11] In the fall of 1992 Mr. Evans drafted Exhibit A-1, Tab 40 and met with Mr. Thomson in an effort to have Mr. Thomson present it to Mr. Fisher for Mr. Fisher to sign. Mr. Thomson refused to do this. Exhibit A-1, Tab 40 provides, among other things, that Mr. Fisher will indemnify the other partners respecting the tax benefits of the transaction. So far as Mr. Evans knows, Mr. Fisher never saw this document.
[12] In the summer of 1993 Mr. Thomson told Mr. Bossy that there were two other lease debts of TF & B that Mr. Fisher had not revealed to them which arose from subleases of premises by Grandview Motors (TF & B). One is described in Exhibit A-1, Tab 15, an Amended Statement of Claim dated October 27, 1992 as $372,000. The other is described in Exhibit A-1, Tab 20, dated February 17, 1993 as unpaid rent due February 1, 1993 of $3,477, etc. Mr. Bossy relied on Mr. Thomson to straighten this out; in the fall of 1993 Mr. Thomson felt the course was to wind up TF & B to protect their assets. Mr. Evans learned of this from Mr. Thomson in the fall of 1993 while having coffee with him. Mr Evans went ballistic; he wanted to wind up TF & B and get rid of the exposure.
[13] Throughout the entire history of these proceedings, Mr. Fisher owned all of the voting shares of TF & B. Mr. Fisher voted to pay the six percent dividends on the Class C shares of the Appellants. He voted to redeem the Class C shares in December, 1993. Neither Appellant was ever a director of TF & B. Mr. Fisher did not testify but, so far as there is any evidence before the Court, Mr. Fisher was the directing mind of TF & B. Despite the fact that the Court believes that Mr. Fisher did not reveal the sublease indebtedness possibilities which arose in 1993 when he presented this transaction to the Appellants, the Court accepts as correct the material contained in Exhibit A-1, Tab 1. It is the "Business Opportunity" which Mr. Fisher drafted with Deloitte Touche and had presented to the Appellants as the agreement under which they would acquire the Class C shares in TF & B. It was not adopted in detail - for instance, the Class C shares were not retractable. However both agreements between the CA partnership and TF & B had expiry dates of December 31, 1993, after which they could be terminated on 30 days' notice by either party. Paragraph 6 of the "Business Opportunity" plan states that the Class C shares must be held for at least two years in an active business.
[14] The Appellants' argument that the Minister failed to respond to the Notices of Objection with all due dispatch was withdrawn by Appellants' counsel at the opening of his argument. However, Suzanne Walker testified that the Appellants' assessments arose from the fact that TF & B's income tax returns for 1992 and 1993 described it as an "inactive" corporation. Therefore the redemption of the Class C shares triggered a review. But until TF & B's 1992 and 1993 income tax returns were filed, this fact was not known. It is significant that TF & B's 1992 and 1993 income tax returns contained what, in the circumstances of this case, was a serious error while TF & B remained under the control of Mr. Fisher.
[15] These assessments are based on the Minister's allegation that the Appellants' gains were from an adventure in the nature of trade. Appellants' counsel argued that the Appellants' realization as a result of the operation of the Income Tax Act is not the factor to be considered. Rather it is whether the transaction is a trading operation which is intended to, and does, earn a profit. He quoted Hugessen, J. A. in Loewen v. The Queen, 94 DTC 6265 at 6269:
In order to resolve the conflict, it is necessary, in my view, first to ask oneself whether tax considerations, and more particularly an anticipated tax advantage, can properly be determinative of whether or not any given transaction is a trading operation. In my view, they cannot. While the saving of taxes is clearly an important consideration in the conduct of any modern business, I do not think it can properly be said that a transaction whose sole purpose is to reduce the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer is, for that reason alone, an adventure in the nature of trade. In the recent case of Moloney v. The Queen,4 this Court was faced with the opposite side of the income/capital gains coin, namely whether a taxpayer could deduct as business expenses the costs incurred in a scheme the whole purpose of which was to obtain refunds of tax. In dismissing the taxpayer's appeal, we said:
While it is trite law that a taxpayer may so arrange his business as to attract the least possible tax, it is equally clear in our view that the reduction of his own tax cannot by itself be a taxpayer's business for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. To put the matter another way, for an activity to qualify as a "business" the expenses of which are deductible under paragraph 18(1)(a), it must not only be one engaged in by the taxpayer with a reasonable expectation of profit, but that profit must be anticipated to flow from the activity itself rather than exclusively from the provisions of the taxing statute.
[emphasis added]
4 92 DTC 6570.
Respondent's counsel argued that the entire transaction is a replica of Minister of National Revenue v. Sissons, 69 DTC 5152 which the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously found to be taxable as an adventure in the nature of trade. In particular Pigeon, J. said for the Court at 5154:
(d) As to the fact that the gain arose at least in part from respondent's efforts, this clearly tends to show not that it is a capital gain but profit from a "business". One of the characteristics of income from such a source is that it is essentially the result of the businessman's efforts.
(e) Finally, respondent's gain cannot properly be considered as having arisen fortuitously. On the contrary, uncontradicted evidence shows that it is the result of a carefully considered plan executed as conceived. It is true that there is some evidence that the profits from the stamp business carried on for the benefit of Sonograph were greater and quicker than anticipated. This does not make them fortuitous in the legal sense.
[16] Respondent's counsel also raised the issue that the Appellants had a secondary intention at the time that they acquired the Class C shares to realize the gain in question. Secondary intention was not pleaded by the Respondent in either Reply.
[17] The entire transaction must be examined in order to make a determination in these appeals. Using the headings set out by Rouleau, J. in Happy Valley Farms Ltd. v. The Queen, 86 DTC 6421, the Court finds:
1. Nature of the Property sold
These shares were not sold in 1993. They were redeemed by TF & B. The Appellants had no corporate control over that occurrence. The holders of the Class C shares were paid dividends at the will of TF & B at the rate of six percent per annum.
2. Length of period of ownership
About 26 months. This was just over the 24 month limit required. The Appellants both testified that the redemption occurred because of the unforeseen lease liabilities. While Mr. Fisher did not testify, the evidence is that these two liabilities were contingencies which were unknown to the Appellants when they signed the guarantees and acquired the Class C shares in 1991. When the subtenants failed to pay, the landlords demanded and sued TF & B. It is credible that Mr. Fisher would chose to pay off his accounting partners who had bailed him out in 1991 by signing the guarantees before he would pay the landlords. Legally, the Appellants had no right to cause or prevent the redemption; that was entirely up to Mr. Fisher. Thus the length of ownership was not within the Appellants' control. One of the Appellants testified that while they learned of the lease liabilities in September and October, 1993, it took until December, 1993 for the paperwork to be completed. This allegation is verified by the fact that the Appellants agreed to sign the guarantees in return for the Class C shares which they acquired on or about October 21, 1991. Yet the agreements between the partnership and TF & B were signed later.
3. Frequency of similar transactions
Neither Appellant has owned similar shares or had such shares redeemed either before or since.
4. Work expended in connection with the property realized
This factor is very much in accord with the facts in Sissons. The Appellants' partnership had transferred the consulting work. The same staff, including the Appellants, did the consulting work for TF & B. TF & B's profits from their work paid off the debts, paid the six percent dividends to the Appellants and provided the money for the redemption. As stated in Sissons, those profits were not fortuitous.
5. Circumstances responsible for the sale of the property
In this case there is no testimony from Mr. Fisher as to why he caused the Class C shares to be redeemed. Mr. Fisher's "Business Opportunity" plan (Exhibit A-1, Tab 1) clearly describes the redemption that occurred and the Appellants saw it before they entered into the transaction. However Mr. Fisher's words are not always reliable: his December 31, 1991 statement for TF & B made no note of the sublease problem. He did not advise the Appellants of the sublease demands when he first learned of them. He finally had Mr. Thomson advise the Appellants of the sublease claims and the partners concerns about them. Mr. Fisher caused TF & B to redeem the shares. He controlled the date of redemption. The Court accepts as true the fact that the redemption occurred in December, 1993 because of delays in proceeding with the paperwork. A further corroboration for this finding is that Mr. Evans certainly knew from the first moment that he saw the "Business Opportunity" plan that these assessments were likely; in these circumstances, a delay from December, 1993 to January, 1994 for redemption would have offered the Appellants some respite respecting a possible assessment. That did not happen.
6. Motive at the time of acquiring the Class C shares
The Court accepts both Appellants' testimony that the exact timing of the redemption occurred as a result of the sublease claims. Once the Appellants learned of them they wanted it to occur as soon as possible so as to avoid the sublease liabilities. What their motives were at the time of acquisition of the Class C shares remains to be decided.
[18] Generally, the following is a summary of the findings based on Happy Valley Farms:
1. Dividend paying shares were redeemed by a corporation controlled by a stranger.
2. The shares were owned for about 26 months.
3. The Appellants had no similar transactions.
4. The Appellants' work produced the gains in the shares redeemed.
5. The motive remains to be decided.
6. The Appellants acquired the shares from Mr. Fisher as part of the consideration for transfer of their consulting business to TF & B.
[19] With respect to finding number 4, had the consulting business failed to pay off the bank, the Appellants and the other partners would have had to pay the bank. It follows that the Appellants logically expected and intended that TF & B would make enough money to pay off TF & B's indebtedness. Moreover, Mr. Evans testified that he presented Mr. Fisher with the demand for six percent dividends and Mr. Fisher did not disagree. These also had to come out of the consulting earnings. On this basis, it is clear that, from the beginning of the entire transaction, the Appellants intended that the consulting profits that TF & B acquired would pay off its debt without any tax cost to them and would use the Appellants' former consulting business's profits to do so. The partners saw to it that TF & B made enough profit to pay the Class C shares six percent dividends in 1992 and 1993. Moreover TF & B had enough profit to redeem all of the Class C shares (188,000 x 3) by the end of 1993. Given the circumstances, that represents a very large amount of consulting work that the partnership transferred to TF & B.
[20] In 26 months TF & B earned enough consulting profits to pay:
1. Debts 199,000
+54,666
253,666 $253,666
2. Dividends 188,000
x 6%
11,280
x 3
33,840
x 2 years
67,680 67,680
3. Shares redeemed
188,000
x 3
564,000 564,000
TOTAL $885,346
By comparison, the Appellants' net professional incomes which they reported for income tax purposes in 1993 and 1994 are as follows:
1993 1994
Mr. Bossy (Exhibit R-2) $71,365.54 $55,882.47
Mr. Evans (Exhibit R-1) $51,847.00 $80,289.94
[21] That fact assists in establishing an underlying long-term intent. Compared to the Appellants' professional incomes, the total consulting profits required to redeem the Class C shares at the end of 1993 is very large. It is very unlikely that it was suddenly acquired or available to TF & B in the short period between the Appellants learning of the sublease claims and the Class C share redemption. Moreover, those profits were the result of the partners' efforts. Those efforts followed the course of the plan conceived by Mr. Fisher in his "Business Opportunity" document which the Appellants examined before they entered into this transaction.
[22] The question which remains is whether this can be regarded as an adventure in the nature of trade when control over the redemption was not the Appellants'. Mr. Fisher controlled that.
[23] All of the testimony about what Mr. Thomson and Mr. Fisher said is hearsay. No explanation was given as to why they did not testify. Thus, the only acceptable evidence of Mr. Fisher's intention (whether for himself or as TF & B's sole director) that is before the Court is Exhibit A-1, Tab 1, the "Business Opportunity" document which was drawn by Mr. Fisher with the attached letter from Deloitte Touche. That outlines a programme to utilize the tax losses with redeemable preference shares in accordance with what in fact happened. The Court finds that the Appellants' Class C shares were issued as part consideration for the Appellants' transferring or moving the consulting business and income into TF & B. However, on the evidence, the Class C shares were not worth $188,000 to each at that time in 1991; that value could not exist in the shares unless TF & B obtained income to create the value in the corporation. It could only occur if all the accounting partners transferred the consulting business and income into TF & B. They did that immediately, back-dated to the beginning of 1991 and to include some 1990 work. On the basis of this evidence it is clear that, from the beginning, the Appellants and the other accounting partners intended, when Messrs. Thomson, Bossy and Evans acquired the Class C shares, to transfer the consulting business and its income into TF & B, to pay off these $199,000 and $54,666 debts, and to put enough consulting earnings into TF & B to redeem the Class C preferred shares in the manner that they did and on whatever date they could first conveniently do so. This was the intention and the concerted action of all the partners, together, from the beginning until the redemption occurred.
[24] For these reasons, the Court finds that assumptions 10(w), (x) and (y) are correct and are established by the evidence.
[25] The Class C shares were not acquired by the Appellants' as an investment. The events in evidence establish that they were acquired by the Appellants in part consideration for their guarantees, but with the main purpose and intent of obtaining a profit from their redemption by means of the insertion of their consulting practice's income into TF & B and redeeming it through the Class "C" shares, as they did.
[26] As a result the Appellants' profits from the Class C shares are income from a business in the 1993 taxation year as assessed.
[27] The appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchwan, this 30th day of April, 2002.
"D. W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2000-1817(IT)G and 2000-1818(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: Michael R. Bossy and Michael Evans
v. The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: London, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 19 and 20, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 30, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Keith M. Trussler
Counsel for the Respondent: Gerald Chartier
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Keith M. Trussler
Firm: Griffen & Partners
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-1817(IT)G
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL R. BOSSY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Michael Evans v. Her Majesty the Queen, (2000-1818(IT)G)
on March 19 and 20, 2002 at London, Ontario
by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Keith M. Trussler
Counsel for the Respondent: Gerald Chartier
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years are dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 30th day of April, 2002.
|
"D. W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.
2000-1818(IT)G
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL EVANS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Michael R. Bossy v. Her Majesty the Queen, (2000-1817(IT)G)
on March 19 and 20, 2002 at London, Ontario
by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Keith M. Trussler
Counsel for the Respondent: Gerald Chartier
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years are dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 30th day of April, 2002.
|
"D. W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.