Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby the learned member of the Board confirmed the assessment of the plaintiff to income tax by the Minister for the plaintiff’s 1974 taxation year and dismissed the appeal

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the Crown from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated February 18, 1974 whereby the assessments of the Minister of National Revenue was set aside and it was held that all the amounts established as accrued salaries for

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated the 21st day of March, 1975 whereby such Board dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff from assessment to income tax for the appellant’s 1971 taxation year. By such assessment the

Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division delivered by Marceau, J dismissing an appeal against assessments under the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, for the taxation years 1958,1959,1960, 1962,

Heald, J:—I agree with the conclusion of MacKay, DJ that the payment of $100,000 was for goodwill and that the appellant was entitled to treat it as capital and not as income. I also agree with his reasons for arriving at that conclusion.

Dubé, J:—This is an appeal of a decision of the Tax Review Board confirming an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue which included in the plaintiff’s income for his 1973 taxation year the sum of $77,812.50.

Cattanach, J:—This appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board respecting the assessment of the appellant to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1972 taxation year is what is known in the vernacular as a “trading case”.

Cattanach, J:—For reasons similar to those expressed in the motion in Mike Dym and The Queen (Court File No T-64-77) the motion herein is likewise refused.

Cattanach, J:—This is an application to change the terms of a judgment granted by myself on May 18, 1979 following upon a motion under Rule 324 for judgment on consent dated May 7, 1979 signed by counsel for both parties. The motion recites

Heald, J:—We are all of the view that there are no significant distinctions between this case and the Snow case (Russell Snow v The Queen, [1979] CTC 227; 79 DTC 5177), where this Court held: Section 86 of the