Burchell, J:—This is an application under Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules of Nova Scotia for an order appointing a receiver of shares and other evidence of the legal or beneficial entitlement of Carl R Rahey to rents, profits or moneys

Pratte, J:—L’appelante se pourvoit à l’encontre d’un jugement du juge Marceau de la Division de première instance qui a rejeté l’action qu’elle avait intentée pour contester ses cotisations d’impôt sur le revenu pour les années d'imposition 1967, 1968 et 1969.

Marceau, J:—Dix-sept appels (portés en vertu des anciennes règles de la Cour) sont ici en cause.* [1] Ils ont tous été joints dans le présent dossier a la demande des parties. ll s’agit d’appels inscrits en même temps par autant

Dube, J:—Il s’agit ici d’un renvoi à la Cour fédérale en vertu des dispositions de l’article 174 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu. La question présentée à la Cour est la suivante:

Heald, J:—This is an appeal against that part only of the judgment of the Trial Division wherein it was held that the appellant .. is not entitled to exclude from its 1968 taxable income the sum of $227,171 being the net amount of

Jerome, ACJ:—This action, although in the form of a trial is, pursuant to the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, section 172, an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board [1979] CTC 2388; 79 DTC 314. The head-note

Jerome, ACJ:—This action is brought by the plaintiff in accordance with section 172 of the Income Tax Act as an appeal from the reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of the capital cost allowances to which the

Collier, J:—This appeal arises under the “old” Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 1-48, as amended to and including 1971. The taxation year under consideration is 1971.

There are two issues:

Smith, D J:—This is an appeal by a taxpayer from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated July 4, 1979, dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal from the assessment for income tax of his income for the taxation year 1977.

Dubé, J:—The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the sum of $52,000 — $50,000 plus $2,000 being the value of a 1974 automobile — given to the plaintiff following his dismissal constitutes non-taxable damage as claimed by him, or