Andrews, J (in Chambers):—This is an appeal pursuant to section 44 of the Succession Duty Act, RSBC 1960, c 372 against a decision of the Minister of Finance made pursuant to section 43 of the Succession Duty

Pratte, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—The evidence supports the finding made by the trial judge that the respondent, in executing the contracts under which the payments here in question were made, had been mainly motivated by the desire to obtain the services of Gollom and Binder. In those circumstances, we are of opinion that the trial judge did not err in ruling that the deduction of those payments was not prohibited by paragraph 12(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Gibson, J (orally):—At issue is the character of the payments (namely whether on capital or on revenue account) of $100,000 paid by the appellant to Parlton Drugs Limited, $2,100 paid by the appellant for the surrender of a lease of premises, and

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated September 12, 1975 with respect to the assessment of the defendant to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for the defendant’s

Addy, J:—The plaintiff, a United States company, was taxed for the years 1969 to 1972 inclusively under Part III of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 (hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”) and, subsequently, under Part

The Chief Justice (orally for the Court):—We do not need to hear you Mr Chalmers and Mr Pyrcz. We agree with the reasons for judgment of Gibson, J and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Pratte, J and Hyde, DJ):—Except as hereinafter set out, the circumstances in this appeal do not differ materially from those in The Queen v Rockmore

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Pratte, J and Hyde, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal from the respondent’s assessment under Part I of the Income

Le Daln, J (judgment delivered from the Bench) (concurred in by Heald and Ryan, JJ):—This is a section 28 application to review and set. aside an order, pursuant to subsection 232(6) of the Income Tax Act, to a

Collier, J:—The plaintiff is a barrister and solicitor. In 1972 and prior years he practised his calling in Windsor, Ontario. His business was and is “a profession”.f [1] In the taxation years previous to January 1, 1972 he had