The Chief Justice (per curiam):—These two appeals raise the same primary question and it is this. If machinery (here a newsprint machine), to be delivered in a knocked-down condition and purchased under a contract providing that title will pass only

Dubé, J:—This is an appeal from a Tax Review Board decision allowing defendant’s appeal from an income tax assessment for his 1972 taxation year. In computing his income, defendant claimed as a deduction the sum of $495 as disbursements for meals.

Gibson, J:—These appeals from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated June 29, 1973 were heard on common evidence and relate to reassessments for the 1964 taxation year of the four corporations, Audrey Cold Storage Limited, Freda Limited, Heleis Storage

Le Dain, J (concurred in by Pratte, J and Hyde, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the former Tax Appeal Board which had dismissed an appeal against

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals by the plaintiff from assessments to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for the plaintiff’s 1972 and 1973 taxation years whereby the Minister disallowed the plaintiff's claim for a deduction of Canadian exploration

Addy, J:—The deceased, Bertram L Katz, died testate on or about September 18, 1973, leaving all of his property to named executors and trustees in trust to pay the revenue to his wife with the remainder to other beneficiaries after his wife’s

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff, a chartered accountant, was an equal partner with another chartered accountant in the practice of their profession in Edmonton, Alberta from December 1, 1966 until some time after the end of the partnership’s fiscal year on May

Walsh, J:—By order of Associate Chief Justice Thuriow dated August 24, 1976, this action was heard jointly and on the same evidence as the cases of Henri-Paul Lemay v Her Majesty the Queen, No T-4131-74

Mahoney, J:—The issue is whether the profit realized by the plaintiff on the disposition in 1973 of an interest in real estate acquired in 1959 is taxable as a capital gain or as income. There is no dispute to the calculation of the profit. By

The Chief Justice (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench: June 16, 1976):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division disposing of three interlocutory motions. At the conclusion of the appellant’s argument, we dismissed the appeal with