McNair, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the Minister’s reassessments with respect to the 1972 and 1973 taxation years whereby certain remuneration was treated as income from an office or employment and not as earnings from a professional partnership.

Mahoney, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division, [1984] C.T.C. 141; 84 D.T.C. 6087, which found that the respondent, a nonresident of Canada, had not carried on business in Canada in 1976 and that, therefore, it was not

Muldoon, J.:—This appeal is taken in regard to the plaintiffs 1975, 1976 and 1977 taxation years. In the course of its business, the plaintiff is frequently obliged to relocate segments of its pipelines at the instance of various persons, firms,

Muldoon, J. [TRANSLATION]:—This is a claim by the plaintiff to recover certain effects, including valuable jewellery, that were seized by customs officers at Mirabel Airport, where the plaintiff arrived from abroad with his wife on September 25, 1982.

Joyal, J.:—This is an action for debt instituted by the plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen, against the defendant, Jay Norris Canada Inc. The trial was heard in Montreal on January 21 and 22, 1986.

Strayer, J.:—This is an appeal from the Tax Court of Canada with respect to its decision upholding reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue of the plaintiff’s income tax for 1978, 1979 and 1980.

The Associate Chief Justice:—This action by way of appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dated April 29, 1982, allowing the defendant's appeal in respect of its 1977 and 1978 taxation years, came on for hearing at London,

Teitelbaum, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of Judge Guy Tremblay of the Tax Court of Canada rendered on January 30, 1984.

Muldoon, J.:—The issue in contention in this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff was obliged, in regard to its 1978 and 1979 taxation years, to have deducted or withheld for remission to the Receiver General, tax equal to 15 per cent of

Cullen, J.:—This case and that of the plaintiff’s husband, Demetrios Gian- nakos (Court No. T-304-85), were heard together on common evidence. My reasons for judgment in T-304-85 apply equally to this case and read as follows.