Marceau, J:—This action—which was appealed from a decision of the Tax Review Board upholding a reassessment dated November 7, 1974, made on plaintiff by the Minister for the 1971 taxation year—concerns the interpretation and application of two provisions of

Dube, J:—This is an appeal from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue on appellant’s income for 1962.

Walsh, J:—These two actions which are appeals from income tax assessments of appellant Hummel Corporation of Quebec Limited for the years ending December 31, 1970, 1971 and 1972 respectively and Hummel Estate Corporation of Canada Limited for the same years were joined

Cattanach, J:—It is apparent from the pleadings herein that this is an appeal from a decision (or perhaps four decisions) of the Tax Review Board dated February 16, 1979 whereby the plaintiff’s appeals from assessments to income tax for his 1973,

Heald, J:—This is a section 28 application to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Review Board (hereafter the Board) made by F J Dubrule, QC, Assistant Chairman of the Board on April 6, 1979. The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows:

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.