John B Goetz:—This is an appeal by the appellant with respect to its 1973 taxation year. It has been agreed by counsel that all evidence adduced in this appeal will apply to the appeals of: Wilstan Construction Limited, Ruland Realty Limited,

The Chairman:—The appeal of Mr Wilhelm J Kok is from an income tax assessment by which the respondent added to the appellant’s income for 1978 an amount of $6,128.55 as income from employment, whereas the appellant contends that the said amount was

M J Bonner:—The appellant is a company formed by an amalgamation which took place in 1977. It appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1972 to 1975 taxation years of one of its predecessor corporations, United Trust Company (hereinafter

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This case was heard at Quebec (Québec) on May 23, 1979.

D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in the City of Montreal, Québec, on June 10, 1980 against an income tax assessment for the year 1977 in which the Minister of National Revenue assessed an amount of $70,650 to tax with the

The Chairman [TRANSLATION]:—This appeal was brought by Mr Mario Bouchard against an assessment for the 1977 taxation year. In the notice of objection and the notice of appeal two parties were disputed:

The Assistant Chairman:—When Dr Egan (the appellant) filed his 1977 income tax return he claimed, as a deduction in computing his net income, a payment which he had made into a registered retirement savings plan (hereinafter called an “RRSP”) for

The Assistant Chairman:— By reassessment for the 1977 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue (respondent) added to the income of B & D Insulation Limited (referred to herein as “B & D” or the “appellant”) the sum of

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec on September 17,1979. The appellant was to file a written plea before November 15, 1979 but has not yet done so.

M J Bonner:—The appellant herein is a law partner of the appellant in Barry S Arbus v MNR. He too joined in the Silverthatch joint venture. The issues in these appeals are the same as in the Arbus appeals and the parties agreed that the outcome should also be the same. These appeals are therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.