Collier, J:—In the year 1969, the plaintiff worked as an ironworker for a number of different employers. Five were in the United States. The plaintiff worked for varying periods of time on different construction projects there. Another of his employers

Smith, DJ:—The question on which this action turns is the value on December 31, 1971, (Valuation Day for the purpose of determining Capital gains on dispositions of property) of the north-east quarter of section 17-6-4 west of the principal meridian in

Berger, J:—This case entails a consideration of the reach of provincial taxing power under the Succession Duty Act, RSBC 1960, c 372.

The Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial division dismissing an action appealing against the assessment of the appellant under part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1975 taxation year.

Smith, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff by way of trial de novo from a decision of the Tax Review Board, dated October 13, 1976, which decision allowed the defendant’s appeal against a reassessment of his income and tax liability therefor

Mahoney, J:—This action, an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board rendered in 1972, in respect of the reassessment of the plaintiff’s 1956 personal income tax, came on for trial at Windsor, Ontario, on May 31, 1978. The final reassessment

Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board rendered on May 31, 1976 allowing defendant’s appeal against reassessments for income tax for the 1971 and 1972 taxation years with respect to amounts of $7,717.99 received by him

Collier, J:—For this taxation year 1972, the defendant sought to deduct, in calculating his income tax, an amount of $4,420. He relied On paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act. That provision is as follows:

Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, [1974] CTC 2095; 74 DTC 1054, upholding a determination that, for its 1966, 1967 and 1968 taxation years, the plaintiff was an associated company with Imperial Optical Co Ltd,

Martland, J (concurred in by Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz, JJ):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which upheld a judgment of the Federal Court, Trial Division, which had dismissed with costs an action, launched