Couture, C.T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal from an assessment for the 1988 taxation year. The facts underlying the assessment are relatively simple.

Lamarre Proulx, T.C.C.J.:—The appellant appeals from the assessment of the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue (the" Minister”), for the 1989 taxation year.

Mahoney, J.A.:— This file has been referred to me for directions. The reasons for this order will read like a primer. That is because of the elementary cause of the problem: the failure of the learned trial judge to observe the requirements

Hugessen, Linden, Robertson, JJ.A.:—

McKeown, J.:— The issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to deduct an inventory allowance in the amount of $652,754 in 1977 giving rise to a noncapital loss which it sought to carry back to its 1976 taxation year. The matter comes before

Dubé, J:—This application is for an order to set aside the decision made by the Minister of National Revenue on November 30, 1992, wherein the Minister denied the applicant's request for the cancellation of interest.

Lacourciére, Goodman and Doherty, JJ.A.:— This is an appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the respondent on one count of an indictment. The reasons for acquittal are now reported at R. v. Erika Fogazzi and Nereo Frank

Joyal, ].:— The sole issue for determination in this matter is whether or not tugboats and train ships are vehicles for the purpose of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

Joyal, J.:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada, [1991] 2 C.T.C. 2268, 91 D.T.C. 1020, by which the appeal of the defendant from an assessment of tax issued pursuant to subsection 227(10) of the

Jerome, A.C.J.:— This is an application by the defendant for an order pursuant to Rules 419(1)(a), (c) and (f), striking out the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim on the grounds that this Court should decline to exercise its discretion under section