The Chief Justice (concurred in by Pratte and Urie, JJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in a proceeding in that Court concerning the tax payable by the respondent under Part I

Shupe, J:—The defendant, a chartered accountant, having successfully passed the examinations of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in January 1974 was, at all material times hereto, engaged in public practice as a partner with the firm of Moen, Kent, Munro

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board which allowed an appeal by the defendant from a reassessment of income tax for the year 1969. In that year Bedford Investments Limited (formerly

Mahoney, J:—The issues are the inclusion in the plaintiff’s 1970 taxable income of $4,800 paid him by his employer and penalties assessed under the federal and provincial Income Tax Acts for each of 1968, 1969 and 1970.

King, JMC:—The accused is charged under subsection 150(2) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, which reads as follows:

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff appeals a decision of the Tax Review Board upholding an assessment disallowing a deduction from his income of maintenance payments made to his wife during 1973.* [1]

Heald, J (per curiam):—This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Trial Division in which the learned trial judge allowed the respondents’ appeal from the reassessment for income tax for the 1973 taxation year in the

Smith, DJ:—In this action the plaintiff is appealing the reassessment of its income for the taxation year 1971, by which the Minister of National Revenue assessed its income for tax purposes at $30,000 more than the amount shown on its income tax

Gibson, J:—The defendant John Melrose Cruickshank, a resident of Paris, France and having a “fiscal domicile” there in 1974 (see Article 11, paragraph VII of Canada-France Income Tax Convention of 1951), received from a private pension plan of Industrial Hose

Gibson, J:—This is an appeal from assessments for the taxpayer plaintiff’s taxation years 1972, 1973 and 1974.

The income of the plaintiff's spouse was from dividends from Canadian corporations in those years as follows: