Bonner, TCJ:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the appellant’s 1981 taxation year. The sole issue is whether the appellant carried on in the year a “non-qualifying business’’, a term defined by paragraph 125(6)(f) of the

Goetz, TCJ:—This appeal was heard by me in Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 29, 1982 in my capacity as a member of the Tax Review Board but this judgment is being rendered in my present capacity as a judge of the Tax Court of

Taylor, TCJ:—This is an application in Toronto, Ontario, on September 19, 1983, for an extension of time within which to file notices of objection against assessments for the years 1977 and 1979. The assessments at issue were dated November 5, 1981;

Christie, CJ:—This is an application by Dr Robert Kidd made pursuant to section 167 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act’) to extend the time within which a notice of objection may be served on the Minister of National Revenue

Taylor, TCJ:—This is an application for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal against an income tax assessment notice. The application reads:

DATED: December 07, 1982.

Taylor, TCJ:—This is an application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of objection for the taxation years 1978, 1979 and 1980. The application, forwarded by Mr John W Readings, CA, is dated April 7, 1983 and reads as

Taylor, TCJ:—This application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of objection for the year 1981 was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 19, 1983. The application was made by the taxpayer’s accountants, Murray, Keeso & Co,

Taylor, TCJ:—This application for an extension of time within which to file notices of objection against income tax assessments for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 was heard in London, Ontario, on August 29, 1983. The application reads:

Tremblay, TCJ:—This case was heard on December 1 and 2, 1982, at the City of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Taylor, TCJ [ORALLY]:—The appeal of Lou Lokash & Associates Ltd for the year 1976 was withdrawn by counsel for the appellant at the commencement of the hearing and is dismissed for want of prosecution.