Marceau, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen against a judgment of the Tax Review Board vacating an assessment dated November 16, 1973 issued by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the defendant’s taxation year 1972. The issue
The Chief Justice:—This is a motion by the respondent for an order that costs be paid to the respondent in the amount of $8,626 with interest thereon.* [1]
Mahoney, J:—This is another appeal against a decision of the Tax Review Board that the $42,565.24 gain realized on the disposition of an interest in real estate was capital and not income. The amount is not in dispute.
Grant, DJ:—The plaintiff was incorporated in Canada as a federal company on October 26, 1953. Its business has been that of construction and renovation of commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings. At all material times its president and manager has been Michael
Carrothers, J (per curiam):—This appeal is brought by the Minister of Finance of British Columbia (“the Minister’’) against the judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Fulton in effect excluding certain specific items from the calculation of the capital tax base
Lazier, JCC (orally):—This is in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen v Arthur D Lyall.
Pratte, J:—L’appel est accueilli, le contre-appel est rejeté; la décision de la Cour de lère instance est cassée et la cotisation relative à l’impôt sur le revenu payable par l’intimée pour l’année d’imposition 1970 est rétablie. Chaque partie devra payer
McMahon, PJ:—In this matter the accused is charged that between March 13, 1975 and April 18, 1975 he did unlawfully fail to provide to the office of the Minister of National Revenue, at the City of Windsor certain information following demand dated January 30,
Mahoney, J:—By a Statement of Claim filed herein March 21, 1974 the plaintiff appeals against income tax assessments for its 1967 and 1968 taxation years. It raises a number of issues. The only one in contention in this application arises out of the sale,
Dubé, J:—This case was heard on common evidence with British Columbia-Yukon Railway Company v Her Majesty the Queen, T-3633-75, and these reasons for judgment apply to both cases. The basic issue is the allocation of
