Clement, J:—This appeal arises out of an authorization of seizure given in February 1975 under subsection 231(4) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by SC 1970-71-72, c 63, resulting inaveryextensiveseizureof documents of the appellants. The

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from reassessments of his taxable income under the Income Tax Act in respect of the year 1977 by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue whereby the latter adjusted the same to

Mahoney, J:—The only issue is whether an amount received by the plaintiff in connection with the termination of his employment was income from an office or employment as determined by the Minister of National Revenue. If so, it was properly included

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from an income tax assessment for the 1972 taxation year, made under subsection 48(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Kerr, DJ:—By a reassessment of the respondent’s income tax for the 1972 taxation year the Minister of National Revenue applied paragraph 6(1)(e) and subsection 6(2) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, to add

Mahoney, J:—The issue is whether payments, received by the plaintiff, which are deemed by paragraph 214(15)(a) of the Income Tax Act SC 1970-71-72, c 63 as amended by SC 1974-75-76, c 26, subsection 119(2) to be a payment

Dubé, J:—Plaintiff, a corporation in the meat wholesaling business, is appealing from a decision of the Tax Review Board dismissing its appeal from a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1975 taxation year.

Primrose, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board, Exhibit 1. The circumstances are fully set out in the judgment. Liability for tax, if any, turns on a licensing agreement, Exhibit 2 effective August 1,1970

Primrose, DJ:—This is an action tried in Edmonton on November 29,1979 on the following agreed statement of facts.

Addy, J:—This case was heard by me immediately following that of the Bank of Nova Scotia and involved the same legal issues. The only factual differences were the following:

1. The taxation involved the fiscal year of the plaintiff ending the 31st of October, 1974.

2. The weighted average rate of translation was 2.30894 Canadian dollars to the pound sterling and the amount of United Kingdom tax paid was £1,411,890.48.