Maguire, DJ:—In these proceedings the plaintiff appeals from the decision of the late A W Prociuk, as a member of the Tax Review Board, dated February 24, 1978.

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Ryan, J and Kerr, DJ):—This is an appeal from reassessments of income tax for the taxation years 1972 and 1973. The issue is the entitlement of the appellant to certain capital cost allowance deductions

Kelly, DJ:—The issue in this action is whether the respondent is liable for the amounts required to be deducted, pursuant to section 153 of the Income Tax Act, for income tax, from the wages and salaries of employees of

Thurlow, CJ:—The issue in this appeal and the relevant facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Heald which I have had an opportunity to consider. I also reach the conclusion that the appeal fails but for somewhat different reasons.

The Chief Justice:—The issue in this appeal is whether lump sum payments of $25,375, $75,000 and $81,875 made by the respondent in 1971, 1972 and 1973 respectively to Com/Code Corporation, a non-resident United States corporation, were amounts in respect

Walsh, J:—This action was joined for hearing on common evidence with that bearing No T-5911-79 Paul H Serson v Her Majesty The Queen, the only difference between the two being the amounts involved. Doctor

Mahoney, J:—The defendants apply to strike out the Statement of Claim herein pursuant to Rules 419(1 )(a), (c) and (f). The argument was directed to the allegation that it is an abuse of the process of the Court and I shall deal with

Walsh, J:—In the present appeal against income tax assessments for the years 1974,1975 and 1976 the facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was married on December 19, 1948, to Mary Edith Laughlin and of the children of the marriage only one is

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board relating to the appellant’s income tax for the 1965 and 1966 taxation years.

Heald, J:—1. The Respondent’s application to Quash under paragraph 52(a) of the Federal Court Act

The Motion to Quash is Dismissed for the following reasons: