McNair, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated December 22, 1981 whereby the plaintiffs appeals from assessments of income tax for the 1975 and 1976 taxation years were dismissed. The notices of

Denault, J. [Translation]:—The plaintiffs are claiming a refund of excise tax paid in error on the importation of wigs. The point at issue is whether the defendant must refund the taxes paid within two years of the applica- tion for a refund

MacGuigan, J.:—This case raises a classic issue of income tax law. In the words of the Lord Justice Clerk (Macdonald) in Californian Copper Syndicate Limited v. Harris (1904), 5 T.C. 159 at 165, “‘Is the sum of gain that

Joyal, J.:—This is an appeal by each of the appellants from a notice of assessment relating to the small business deductions under section 125 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (amended S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63). The

Bouck, J.:—When the principle of an independent judiciary clashes with the principle of the supremacy of parliament, which branch of government must stand aside in favour of the other?

Rouleau, J. [Translation]:—This is an appeal pursuant to section 172 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, against a decision of the Tax Review Board (now the Tax Court of Canada) which dismissed the taxpayer's

Pinard, (.[Translation]:—This is an appeal in the form of an action pursuant to subsections 172(2) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63, as amended, brought by the taxpayer Louis Vaillancourt against a notice of