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:

Collier, J:—The defendant and his former wife were divorced on March 20, 1975. The decree nisi of the Supreme Court of British Columbia incorporated the terms of maintenance agreement between the defendant and his wife. Pursuant to that decree, and the

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a reassessment of his 1973 and 1974 personal income tax returns by the Minister of National Revenue whereby there was added to his previously declared income for the year 1973 the sum of

Cattanach, J:—These are three appeals from three decisions by the Tax Review Board conjoined as one in each instance whereby the Board confirmed assessments by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff to income tax for the plaintiff’s 1974,

Maguire, DJ:—In these proceedings the plaintiff appeals from the decision of the late A W Prociuk, as a member of the Tax Review Board, dated February 24, 1978.

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Ryan, J and Kerr, DJ):—This is an appeal from reassessments of income tax for the taxation years 1972 and 1973. The issue is the entitlement of the appellant to certain capital cost allowance deductions

Kelly, DJ:—The issue in this action is whether the respondent is liable for the amounts required to be deducted, pursuant to section 153 of the Income Tax Act, for income tax, from the wages and salaries of employees of

Thurlow, CJ:—The issue in this appeal and the relevant facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Heald which I have had an opportunity to consider. I also reach the conclusion that the appeal fails but for somewhat different reasons.