Gibson, J:—On this hearing, five separate income tax appeals were heard on common evidence, namely, Plan A Leasing Limited v Her Majesty the Queen (T-2224-75); Plan B Leasing Limited v

Cawsey, J (orally):—The accused was charged that:

Walsh, J:—These three cases were heard together on common evidence and relate to plaintiff’s taxation years ending December 31, 1965, December 31, 1966 and December 31, 1967 respectively. As a result of various reassessments, the last one having been made

Heald, J (per curiam):—For the reasons expressed in the case of Ernest Arthur Worry v Her Majesty the Queen [see p 220] this appeal is also dismissed with costs.

Heald, J (per curiam):—The appellant’s only submission before us was that there should be a new trial. In our view, the appellant has failed to establish any basis upon which we would be justified in ordering a new trial. The onus

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is a reference for determination under subsection 17(3) of the Federal Court Act, of a question arising under the Income Tax Act which the parties, pursuant to subsection 173(1) of that Act

The Chief Justice (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tria! Division allowing an appeal by the respondent from a decision of the Tax Review Board holding that the appellant was entitled to

Tavender, J:—This is an appeal by the Crown by way of trial de novo from an acquittal of the accused respondent on a charge that the accused:

Medhurst, JDC:—This is an appeal by trial de novo from a conviction bearing date of June 17, 1975, made by His Honour Judge L A Justason on a charge against the appellant under paragraph 239(1)(d) of the Income

Spence, J (orally for the Court):—We are ali of the opinion that there is no error in the reasons of the courts below. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.