Cullen, J:—There is no real dispute as to the facts in this case.

Dubé, J:—The issue to be resolved in this action is whether the plaintiff (“Plastibeton”), a Montreal manufacturer of precast polymer concrete goods, may benefit from the exempting provisions of paragraphs 26(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the Excise Tax

Reed, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board holding that certain property purchased by the defendant in 1968 had been purchased as a capital acquisition and not as “an adventure in the nature of trade”.

Galligan, J:—This is an application pursuant to section 232 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1970, c 1-5, to determine whether certain documents seized from the offices of Messrs Perry, Farley and Onyschuk, by persons authorized by the

Collier, J:—This action, and another action T-9225-82, were heard at the same time. Both actions are dismissed. The reasons in this action will apply in the other.

Walsh, J:—This action was heard on common proof with five other actions, No T-3319-81 — Carole I Dickinson v The Queen, No T-3322-81 — Brian C Hill v The Queen, No. T-2031-81 —

Joyal, J:—This is an action for payment of moneys due and owing to the Crown by the defendant on the duties and sales tax assessed under the Customs Tariff* and the Excise Tax Actf The trial of the action

Pratte, J:—The only issue on this appeal is whether the Trial Division was right in holding that, in computing his capital gain from the disposition of gold bullion, the respondent could deduct, as part of his cost, interest on the unpaid portion of the

Walsh, J:—This case came for trial at the same time and on the same evidence as T-2209-80, the action bearing number T-2208-80 concerning plaintiffs assessment for his 1977 taxation year and that bearing number T-2209-80 concerning his assessments for his

Dubé, J:—Les parties aux présentes s’entendent sur un exposé des faits pertinents et soumettent la cause au tribunal pour adjudication sur la question suivante: