Pratte, J (concurred in by Urie, J and Smith, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench: December 2, 1975):—The sole issue for determination in this appeal is whether, under the provisions of section 9 of the Estate Tax Act (Statutes of

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Pratte, J and MacKay, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—For the reasons given by the learned trial judge, I am of opinion that the judgment appealed from is correct.

Woods, JA:—This is an appeal by the Crown from the dismissal by Macdonald, J [[1975] WWD 177] of an appeal by way of stated case from Bence, JMC. The charge against the respondent, George E Paveley, was laid on December 6, 1974 and was as follows:

Dube, J:—By consent this action was heard together on common evidence with the action styled Winston A Steeves v Her Majesty the Queen, T-591-74. This judgment therefore applies to both actions.

Smith, DJ:—This case comes before the Court by way of appeal by the plaintiff (conducted as a trial de novo), from a judgment of the Tax Review Board allowing the appeal of the defendant from an assessment for income tax

Marceau, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the reassessment of his income tax, for the taxation year 1972, by notice of which the Minister of National Revenue had disallowed the amount of

Mahoney, J:—The facts are agreed. Robin Ellis Agnew died in 1973. The plaintiff filed an income tax return for that portion of the year he had lived and reported therein gains on deemed disposition of capital property as required by paragraph

A J Frost (orally: March 7, 1975):

1 I shall now give my decision in this appeal in respect of the appellant's 1970 and 1971 taxation years.

2 At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the respondent applied for an order quashing the appellant's notice of appeal with respect to the assessment of tax made for the appellant's 1970 taxation year on the ground that no appeal lies from a “nil” assessment of income tax. The unopposed application was granted.

Collier, J:—The plaintiff sold, in 1970, two pieces of property, described at trial as Melville 2 and Melville 3, for $257,000. Melville 2 had been purchased by it in 1964 for $38,000; Melville 3 in 1967, for $100,000. The Minister of National

Heald, J:—In my reasons for judgment of November 1, 1974 I said at the conclusion thereof [[1974 CTC 783 at 791]: