Primrose, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board, Exhibit 1. The circumstances are fully set out in the judgment. Liability for tax, if any, turns on a licensing agreement, Exhibit 2 effective August 1,1970

Primrose, DJ:—This is an action tried in Edmonton on November 29,1979 on the following agreed statement of facts.

Addy, J:—This case was heard by me immediately following that of the Bank of Nova Scotia and involved the same legal issues. The only factual differences were the following:

1. The taxation involved the fiscal year of the plaintiff ending the 31st of October, 1974.

2. The weighted average rate of translation was 2.30894 Canadian dollars to the pound sterling and the amount of United Kingdom tax paid was £1,411,890.48.

Pratte, J:—This is a section 28 application to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Review Board dated November 1978, determining a question set forth in an application made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to section 174 of

Collier, J:—At the conclusion of the hearing I said the plaintiff’s appeal would be dismissed. Written reasons would be later given. Those reasons now follow.

Addy, J:—The plaintiff taxpayer appeals against a reassessment by the Minister of its income tax return for the 1972 taxation year. The appeal relates to a tax credit claimed by the taxpayer pursuant to paragraph 126(2)(a) of the Income

Décary, J:—The point in issue is to decide if the income of a trust for the years 1975 and 1976 should be assessed as income of the plaintiff, the settlor, under the provisions of subsection 75(1) of the Income Tax Act,

Urie, J:—This is one of two appeals heard together, from orders of Grant, DJ of the trial division whereby firstly he ordered that the time within which an appeal may be instituted by the respondent from a decision of the Tax Review Board

The Associate Chief Justice:—The issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s rights in buildings and improvements (paving) on certain leased land were properly classified by the Minister as a leasehold interest falling within class 13 of the

Dube, J:—The issue to be resolved here is whether the profit realized by the plaintiff from the sale of the Montfort Lakes Development Property for $1,200,000 was income from a business or a capital gain.