Reed, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board which dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff from his assessment for the taxation year 1977.

Mahoney, J:—We are all of the opinion that the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that Parliament had not, by subparagraph 18( l)(l)(i) of the Income Tax Act, clearly prohibited the deduction of the $8,000 in issue in the

Addy, J:—These six cases were ordered to be tried together on common evidence. They involve the assessments for income tax purposes of a business, namely, Westline Chick Sales, owned by June A Pollon for the year 1980 and of another business, namely, Western

Thurlow, CJ:—This appeal is from a judgment of the Trial Division which confirmed the Minister’s assessment of the appellant’s income tax for the year 1976. The Court heard at the same time an appeal (file A-323-83) from the assessment in respect

Dubé, J [TRANSLATION]:—The object of this application is to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, under the provisions of Rule 419(l)(a) of the Federal Court of Canada.

Décary, J [TRANSLATION]:—The fundamental issue in this case is as follows:

Reed, J:—This was an application under Rule 474 for the determination of a question of law with regard to the validity of assessments and reassessments made against the plaintiff taxpayer for the taxation years 1973 to 1977.

McNair, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff taxpayer from his tax assessment for the year 1976 in respect of the sale of his farm land in close proximity to the city boundary of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Minister reassessed the subject land at $229,000

Collier, J:—This was a motion, under Rule 344, for special directions in respect of the costs of this action. There is a similar motion in a companion action, Smith v The Queen, T-2444-80.

Collier, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board. Only the 1974 taxation year is before the court.