Heald, J:—This is an application pursuant to subsection 44(7.3)* [1] of the Excise Tax Act and section 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside the refusal by the Minister of

Reed, J:—This case puts in issue the validity of certain net worth assessments made by the defendant, of the plaintiff taxpayer’s income for the years 1973 to 1977.

Urie, J:—This appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division was heard together with an appeal from a similar judgment in The Queen v Frederick G Vivian, Appeal No 434-83 so that the reasons herein shall apply with

Stone, J:—This action, together with the action in Court No A-1001-82 were tried together on common evidence before Mahoney, J. In each action, separate assessments made under the Income Tax Act SC 1970-71-72, c 63, are attacked. The learned trial judge rendered separate judgments allowing the claim in each action.

Pratte, J [ORALLY]:—We do not need to hear you, Mr Gauthier.

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division quashing assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to subsections 159(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act. The special feature of this case is that

Urie, J:—The sole issue in this appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division is whether the sum of $6,072,595 received by the appellant in its 1974 taxation year and the sum of $725,221 received in its 1975 taxation year ought to have been

Pratte, J [ORALLY]:—We are all of opinion that the appeal must succeed.

Stone, J:—This appeal is brought against the judgment of the Trial Division which vacated the respondent’s 1975, 1976 and 1977 income tax assessments and referred its returns for those years back to the Minister of National Revenue for reassessment on

The Associate Chief Justice:—This action came on for trial at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, on October 4, 1983. At issue is the allegation by the plaintiffs that certain funds seized by the defendant from Armstrong The Mover (Saskatchewan) Ltd were not