The Chairman:—This is the appeal of D G Cowan from an income tax assessment in respect of the 1972 taxation year.

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—The case at bar was heard at Quebec City on May 13, 1977.

The Chairman:—This is the appeal of Wallace R Brunelle from an income tax assessment in respect of the 1973 taxation year which was heard simultaneously with the appeal of Peter Brunelle for the same taxation year. Both appeals deal with the

Delmer E Taylor:—These appeals cover reassessments issued by the Minister of National Revenue dealing with the taxation years 1968, 1969 and 1970. For 1968, an amount of $135,947.16 was added to taxable income, described by the respondent as “Interest

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal from income tax reassessments for the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the reported taxable income of the appellant by amounts of $78,999.53, $220,336.58, $224,398.37

The Assistant Chairman:—Mr Russell appealed to this Board from a reassessment for tax for the 1973 taxation year. After his notice of appeal and the respondent’s reply had been filed, and following a notice of hearing, Mr Russell, who lives in

Roland St-Onge (orally: September 16, 1976):—This appeal was heard on September 16, 1976 at the City of London, Ontario. The question at issue is whether the appellant’s business of hatching chicks in his 1973 taxation year falls under paragraph 125.1

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against income tax reassessments in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the taxable income of the appellant by an amount of $5,074.68 for the year 1961, and disallowed a charitable donation of $1,125

Delmer E Taylor:—These appeals are in respect of income tax reassessments for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. There are two points involved, the first deals with the $284,118 realized by the appellant on the sale of certain land in 1973, a

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal from an income tax reassessment for the year 1971 in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the taxable income of the appellant by an amount of $13,075 with the explanation, “Add: Proceeds from sale