Stone J.A.: - This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada of September 29, 1995, dismissing an appeal from an assessment of the Appellant’s income for the taxation years 1987 and 1988.

Pinard J.: — This is an appeal by way of action against a judgment of the Tax Review Board (the “Board”) dated February 8, 1982, 82 D.T.C. 1128 (T.R.B.), which allowed the defendant’s appeal against reassessments for income tax dated April

John A. Hargrave Prothonotary: —

Cullen J.: — This is an appeal of a reassessment of the plaintiff’s 1978 taxation year. The plaintiff requests that the reassessment for 1978 for federal and provincial tax purposes concerning interest capitalized and interest converted to exploration,

Robertson J.A.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 31, 1993 which dismissed the appellant taxpayer’s appeal from a reassessment of income tax for the 1986 taxation year. Therein Bowman J.T.C.C. held that

Stone J.A.: — This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada of July 4, 1996. A companion appeal is also before us in Court File No. A-434-95. The decisions of the Tax Court of Canada, containing an Agreed Statement

Robertson J.A.: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. Succinctly stated, the issue to be decided is whether a lump sum payment received by the appellant taxpayer, an American citizen and resident of Canada, is

Isaac C.J. (Stone and McDonald, J J. A., concurring: — This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division, [1994] 2 F.C. 154, affirming a decision of the Tax Court [reported 92 D.T.C. 1652] which had

Joyal J.T.C.C.: — This is an appeal by way of a trial de novo from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated October 21, 1986. In that judgment, the Tax Court confirmed an earlier assessment by the defendant, declaring

Dubé J.: — The plaintiff appeals pursuant to the Excise Tax Act (Canada) R.S.C. c. E-13 (the “Act”) from a Notice of Decision dated April 24, 1992 of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) and a Decision