Pratte J.A. (Stone, MacGuigan, JJ.A., concurring):-This is an appeal from a judgment by the Tax Court allowing the respondent’s appeal from the reassessment of its income tax for its 1986 taxation year. By that reassessment, the Minister

Cullen J.:-This is an appeal by CPL Holdings Limited ("the plaintiff" or "the taxpayer") from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") in respect of a reassessment of its income tax for its 1987 taxation year, ending June 30,

Gonthier J.—The issue in the instant appeal is whether paragraph 56(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act”), which requires a taxpayer to include in computing his or her income any

Noel J.:-This is an appeal from assessments made against the plaintiff for his 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 taxation years. These assessments were initially appealed to the Tax Court of Canada, which rejected the appeal by judgment date February 12, 1990.

McKeown J.:—The plaintiff, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. (Gulf), appeals two notices of reassessment for the 1978 taxation year. In computing the plaintiff’s resource profits under section 1204 of the Income Tax Regulations, P.C. 1976-559, SOR/76-188, the Minister deducted

Hugessen J.A.:—This section 28 application seeks to review a decision of the Tax Court of Canada which upheld the Minister’s decision not to allow the applicant to deduct the sum of $18,200 paid in 1988 by the applicant to his separated spouse. That

Hugessen J.A. (Desjardins and McDonald, J J. A., concurring) :-This is a section 28 application to review and set aside a decision of the Tax Court of Canada by which the taxpayer’s application to extend time for

Hargrave, P.:—This is a motion dealt with in writing pursuant to Rule 324. It arises out of a challenge to a bailiff’s right to poundage where goods may have been seized under a writ of execution, but not realized upon, by reason of a

Pratte J.A. (Strayer J.A. and Chevalier D.J., concurring:-We do not need to hear you, Ms. Phillips.

DéCary J.A. (Hugessen and Létourneau, JJ.A., concurring:— The appellant is in reality asking the Court to say that when the Supreme Court of Canada gave its interpretation of subsection 31 (I) [1] (then 13(1)) of