Bowman, T.C.C.J.:—These appeals from reassessments for the appellant's 1985 and 1986 taxation years have to do with the inclusion by the Minister in the appellant's income for 1985 of the amounts of $135,866 and $35,872 as a“ benefit or advantage” within

Brulé, T.C.CJ.:—These are appeals heard on common evidence. In the case of King Meadow Farms Ltd. (” King”) 1982 and 1983 years were involved. In the Gloriation Investments Ltd. ("donation") case the years under appeal were 1982 and 1984. In the

Rowe, T.C.C.D.J.:- appellant appeals from a reassessment of income tax for the 1987 taxation year. The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the sum of $33,039 claimed by the appellant as expenses incurred in the repair and maintenance of a property,

Garon, T.C.C.J. (orally):— These are appeals from assessments by the Minister of National Revenue dated December 3, 1987 for the 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 taxation years.

Dussault, T.C.C.J.:—Il s'agit d'un appel d'une nouvelle cotisation pour l’année d'imposition 1988 par laquelle l'intimé, le ministre du Revenu national («le Ministre»), a refusé une déduction de 3 730 $ réclamée par l’appelant comme frais de déplacement reliés à

Lamarre Proulx, T.C.CJ.:— The appellant has appealed the income tax reassessments of the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue (the"Minister") for 1984, 1985 and 1986.

Brulé, T.C.C.J.:—These appeals involve the taxation years of 1978, 1979 and 1980 wherein the respondent reassessed the appellant by including amounts of $51,072.13 in 1978, $57,672.78 in 1979, and $17,625.49 in 1980. In addition penalties were added of $524.84

Beaubier, T.C.C.J.:—This matter was heard in Regina, Saskatchewan, on 14 October 1992. It is an appeal pursuant to the General Procedure of this Court.

Tremblay, T.C.C.J.:— This appeal was heard on November 1, 1990 and January 24, 1991, in Quebec City, Quebec.

Kempo, T.C.J.:—These appeals, on consent application, were joined for hearing on common evidence as the issues are interrelated. Counsel for the respondent advised the Court that the penalties levied against each appellant pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the