Marceau, J:—Plaintiff is appealing the decision of the Tax Review Board, refusing him the right to deduct in calculating his income for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 certain ‘‘costs of canvassing and seeking new clients”, which he contends he was

Mahoney, J:—This issue is whether the defendant was entitled to claim capital cost allowance for 1968 in respect of certain real estate. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the decision of the Tax Review Board which allowed the

Fulton, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Minister under the Corporation Capital Tax Act, SBC 1973, c 24 (“the Act”). In his decision the Minister affirmed an assessment made by the Commissioner assessing additional

Collier, J:—The plaintiff claims, pursuant to section 222 and subsection 224(4) of the Income Tax Act,* [1] the sum of $7,324.54.

Martland, J (orally for the Court):—We are all of the opinion that this appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs.

Collier, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board. The Minister of National Revenue in assessing the defendant’s taxable income for 1968 and 1969 included the profits or gains from the sale of two apartment buildings.

Dubé, J:—This is an appeal from a reassessment of the plaintiff’s income tax for the 1970 taxation year. By Notice of Reassessment dated August 9, 1974, the Minister confirmed that the amount of $774.69 claimed as deduction from income in respect of alimony does

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated October 31, 1974, whereby an appeal by the defendant herein from an assessment to income tax for the defendant’s 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 taxation years by the

Décary, J (delivered orally from the Bench in Montreal, on April 30, 1976):—This is a trial de novo of a matter heard by the Tax Review Board which, on June 4, 1975, decided that the defendant was not associated to

Décary, J (delivered orally from the Bench in Montreal on April 30, 1976):—In this matter, the issue is to determine whether the Minister of National Revenue was right in considering that the market value of shares by Walter M Lowney Co Limited, hereinafter