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.

Grant, DJ:—1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in respect of the reassessments of its income tax for the years 1970 and 1971 made by the Minister of National Revenue on January 15, 1976 and on January 28, 1976, respectively.

The Associate Chief Justice:— This is an appeal under the Income Tax Act from a re-assessment of tax for the year 1973. In making the assessment the Minister disallowed as being an outlay of capital a deduction

Pratte, J:—In support of this appeal, the appellant’s counsel reiterated all the attacks that had been made in the Trial Division against his client’s income tax assessments for the years 1967 to 1975. In my view, all those attacks were rightly