Roland St-Onge:—The appeal of Michael A Steeves came before me on April 2,1979 at the City of Toronto, Ontario and the issue is whether the appellant can claim the interest and the dividend deduction of $1000 by virtue of section 110.1 of the

Guy Tremblay:—La présente cause a été entendue à Montréal (Québec) le 18 mai 1978.

Roland St-Onge:—The appeals of Mr John M Fowlis, receiver and manager for MacKenzie Air Limited and Peat Marwick Ltd, receiver and manager for MacKenzie Air (Sask) Ltd came before me on February 12,1979 at the City of Toronto, Ontario, and were

Roland St-Onge:—The appeal of Mr T R Douglas came before me on December 14,1978 in Vancouver, British Columbia and the issue is whether the amounts the appellant received from his company in the 1970-1971 taxation years are taxable as benefits received

M J Bonner:—The appellants have each appealed from assessments made pursuant to directions under subsection 247(2) of the Income Tax Act that they be deemed to be associated for the 1973 and 1974 taxation years. The appeals

M J Bonner:—These three appeals were heard together. Much of the evidence was common to the issues in all three appeals. In all there was a dispute as to the value on December 31, 1971, (V-day) of lands lying in a more or less

Guy Tremblay:—Cette cause fut entendue à Sherbrooke (Quebec) le 23 janvier 1979.

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on March 1, 1979, against income tax assessments in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed as deductions for alimony payments, the amounts of $6,978, $8,557.20, and $1,906.69 for

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on March 1, 1979, against assessments of income tax for the years 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. The assessments for the first three years are based on the inclusion by the

Roland St-Onge:—The appeals of Marsh & McLennan Limited and Harry Price Hilborn Insurance Ltd came before me on February 14, 1979, at the City of Toronto, Ontario and it was agreed between counsel that the evidence in the appeal of Marsh &