Keith, J:—This appeal from the notice of reassessment by the respondent of the appellant’s income for its fiscal year ending December 31, 1974, comes to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Division F, sections 155 to 160 inclusive of

Thurlow, CJ:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which allowed with costs an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Tax Review Board and held the appellant not entitled to a deduction in respect of child care

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby the defendant’s appeal from an assessment of the defendant by the Minister of National Revenue to income tax for his 1978 taxation year was allowed

Mahoney, J:—In issue is the proper income tax treatment of $25,000 received by the plaintiff in 1979. The Defendant has assessed the entire amount to tax; the plaintiff reported as income and now pleads that the $25,000 was a termination payment

Dubé, J:—This is an application under subsection 232(4) of the Income Tax Act to fix a time and a place for the determination of the question whether the applicants have a solicitor-client privilege in respect of documents, records

Pratte, J:—This is an application under section 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside a decision of an official of the Department of National Revenue made on December 18, 1981, rejecting the applicant’s application

Jerome, ACJ:—This is an action by way of appeal from the determination by the Minister of National Revenue from the plaintiff’s 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 taxation years. The matter came on for hearing before me at Toronto, on Tuesday, October 19,

Mahoney, J:—This action was tried on common evidence with an action by Ann-Gus Holdings Limited, Court no T-1114-80, and arises out of the determination by the Minister that the companies were associated with each other under

Walsh, J:—This action concerns plaintiff’s claim for.maximum capital cost allowance under Class 2 in its 1971-72-73 and 1974 taxation years of additional amounts of $4,073,751, $5,163,174, $5,958,696 and $6,907,912 for each of the said years respectively. At the

Le Juge Pratte:—Il s’agit d’appels de décisions de la Division de premiere instance qui ont fait droit à deux requêtes qu’avait présentées Sa Majesté pour faire réviser la taxation des frais que la Cour avait préalablement adjugés à messieurs Leclerc