Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from reassessments of its income tax returns for the years 1974 and 1975 made by the Minister and dated June 6,1978. It was incorporated under the laws of Ontario on April 4, 1972 and is a

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated December 23, 1979 which dismissed the appeal of JNBT Developments Ltd, Helen Foster and the plaintiff Marshall heard on common evidence. None of the other parties have

Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from reassessments of plaintiff’s 1973 and 1974 income tax returns so as to include in the computation of plaintiff’s income for his 1973 taxation year the sum of $29,387.10 being the gain on the sale of a property

The Chief Justice:—This case concerns the construction and application of the Retail Sales Tax Act, RSM 1970, c R150 (originally entitled the Revenue Tax Act), as amended by 1972 (Man), c 6 and by

Smith, DJ:—The issue in this case is whether a profit of $102,294.96 realized by the plaintiff on the sale of certain farm land in Manitoba should be classified as capital gain, as contended by the plaintiff, or income for the taxation year

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal from an income tax reassessment in respect of its 1974 taxation year.

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of his income for the 1976 income tax year. The plaintiff in his return filed for that year sought to deduct the sum of $21,599.53 on

Dubé, J [TRANSLATION]:—The question here is whether the losses of $282,852 for 1972 and $25,000 for 1974 incurred by plaintiff (“PACO”) are deductible as expenses incurred to earn income, as plaintiff contends, or constitute outlays on capital account, as the

Pratte, J [TRANSLATION]:—The only question raised by this appeal is as to whether the Trial Division properly held that appellant could not deduct, in computing its income for the taxation years 1974 and 1975, certain legal fees which it had incurred

Urie, J:—The respondent seeks to have this Court reconsider its judgment herein on two grounds: