Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This case was heard in Quebec City on May 5, 1977.

Guy Tremblay (TRANSLATION):—The case at bar was heard at Quebec City on May 6, 1977. The evidence was heard concurrently with that of Mr Pierre Vizien (76-1061).* Both men had the same employment with the same employer and claimed similar expenses.

A W Prociuk:—The appellant, Arthur Hailey Limited, appeals from the respondent’s reassessment of its income for the taxation year 1970 wherein additional tax in the sum of $6,592.31 was levied by reason of the fact that the respondent assessed on

A W Prociuk:—The appellant corporation, formerly known as Kalium Chemicals Ltd, appeals from the respondent’s assessment dated January 8, 1975 wherein non-resident tax in the sum of $4,238.39 together with penalty and interest thereon in the sum of

Roland St-Onge (orally: December 6, 1977):—The appeal of Roberto Ceglia came before me on December 6, 1977 at the City of Ottawa, Ontario and it concerns his 1973 taxation year. It is one of those numerous real estate cases that the Board is

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This case was heard at Montreal, Quebec on December 15, 1976.

The Assistant Chairman:—Uniflor Limited (appellant) has appealed to this Board from assessments for tax for its 1972 and 1973 taxation years. The dispute between the parties is, what amount, if any, of a 1970 business loss is available to apply

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against income tax reassessments for the years 1972 and 1973 in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the taxable income of the appellant by amounts of $19,434 and $17,711 respectively for the years

A W Prociuk:—The appellant corporation appeals from the respondent’s reassessment dated March 26, 1975 of its income for the taxation year 1972 wherein it was deemed by the respondent to be associated with Leggat Pontiac Buick (Burlington) Limited, Douglas

The Chairman (orally: September 22, 1977):—I will render my decision in this matter. In dealing with subsection 167(2), the application should set forth the reasons why it was not possible to serve the notice of objection within the time otherwise