Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—These cases were heard on common evidence at Montreal, Quebec on May 15, 1979.

M J Bonner:—These appeals were heard together on common evidence. The appellants appealed from assessments of income tax made on the basis that profits realized on the sale in 1974 and 1976 of certain land were income.

M J Bonner:—These appeals were heard together on common evidence. Each appellant appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1974, 1975 and 1976 taxation years. For 1974 the Minister included in income the gain realized on the sale of land

The Chairman:—The appeals of Mr Anilkant Mody and Mrs Kumud Mody were heard on common evidence. The issue is whether the amount of profits realized by the appellants in the disposition of certain properties in the taxation years 1974 and 1975 are

The Chairman:— The appeal of Robert C Rickerd is from an assessment in respect of the 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years, for which the appellant claimed business expenses in the amounts of $4,109.72, $3,549.16 and $4,686.67 respectively. Of those

Roland St-Onge:—In this appeal, the parties have agreed to file an agreed statement of facts and to send written submissions.

The agreed statement of facts reads as follows:

D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in the City of Toronto, Ontario, on September 23, 1980, against an income tax assessment for the year 1976 in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed a claim on the income tax return in

D E Taylor:—This is an appeal heard in the City of Toronto, Ontario, on September 23,1980, against an income tax assessment for the year 1972 in which the Minister of National Revenue adjusted the income of the appellant so that

Roland St-Onge:—The appeal of Mr Craig Nuttall came before me on June 9, 1980, at the City of Thunder Bay, Ontario and the issue is whether he wilfully attempted to evade payment of the tax payable by him under Part I of the

Roland St-Onge:— The appeals of Beverley and Eugene Henderson came before me on October 16 and 17, 1980, at the City of Toronto, Ontario and were heard on common evidence. The issue is whether the appellants failed to report income on