Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff disputes his assessment for withholding tax in respect of interest earned in Canada and received by the plaintiff’s non-resident client. The client had an interest in land expropriated by the City of Ottawa and, in 1970, by a

Pratte J (concurred in by Ryan and Le Dain, JJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board confirming the reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue

Décary, J [TRANSLATION]:—The question is whether plaintiff, who Is married with four children, was entitled to deduct from his income for 1973 tuition fees of $180 that he paid for his wife, whom he was supporting in full while she was a

Cattanach, J:—These appeals by the plaintiff from the assessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the plaintiff’s 1969 and 1970 taxation years, arise from the plaintiff’s search for pirate treasure rumoured to have been buried on Oak Island off

Heald, J:—This is a section 28 application on behalf of Coopers & Lybrand, Chartered Accountants, to review and set aside the decision or order of the Director General, Special Investigations Directorate, Department of National Revenue, Taxation, and His Honour

Walsh, J:—The present proceedings involve the contestation by plaintiff of an opposition to seizure made by the opposant. Plaintiff on December 4, 1975 registered a certificate against defendant pursuant to section 223 of the Income Tax Act

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff appeals against the inclusion in her taxable income for 1974 of the sum of $1,839.50 which she says is exempt from taxation by virtue of certain provisions of the Indian Act, RSC 1970, c I-6. The material facts were

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Le Dain, J and Hyde, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, which Board allowed an appeal by the appellant from its

Collier, J:—The plaintiff is a cablevision company carrying on business in Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, BC. For its 1974 taxation year it claimed, pursuant to subsection 125.1(1) of the Income Tax Act,* [1] a

Décary, J:—The question at issue in this action, being an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, is whether or not the owners of a piece of land, upon part of which has been built a revenueproducing property were, for income