Bowman J.T.C.C.:—These are appeals from assessments of the appellant for the 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years. The appeals relate to the deduction of expenses for salaries and fringe benefits in the amount of $62,955, $140,824 and $15,730 in computing the appellant’s

Rip J.T.C.C.:-The issues in these appeals from income tax assessments for the appellant Richcraft Homes Ltd. ("Richcraft”) are whether the proceeds of disposition of twelve single family residential properties were received on capital or income account in its 1988 and

Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:-This is an appeal for the 1987 taxation year.

Beaubier J.T.C.C.:-These appeals were tried together on common evidence by consent of the parties at Calgary, Alberta from June 5 to June 7 inclusive, 1995.

The issues respecting both appeals are as follows:

Christie A.C.J.T.C.C.:—The taxation years under appeal are 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. In reassessing regarding 1985, 1986, 1987 the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") added these amounts respectively to the appellant’s income: $326,796; $344,490; $379,955.

St-Onge J.T.C.C.:-The appeals of Universal Terminal Ltd. and Universal Fuel Ltd. came before me on October 26 and 27, 1994 in the City of Montreal, P.Q., and both counsel agreed that they should be held in common evidence.

Lamarre Proulx J.T.C.C.:-These appeals were heard on common evidence. The years under appeal are the appellants’ 1990 and 1991 taxation years.

Mogan J.T.C.C.:-On September 14, 1982, the appellant entered into a three-page agreement with Martin Yachts Ltd. of Vancouver under which the appellant was granted the right to distribute the "Martin 242" sailboat in the Province of Ontario using the

Kempo J.T.C.C.:-This is a motion brought by Kamal Mydean for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 27(2) of the Federal Court

Rip J.T .C.C.:-The issue in this appeal (informal procedure) from an assessment for 1992 is whether Werner J. Krampl, the appellant, received a benefit of $25,000 pursuant to paragraph 6(1 )(a) and subsection 6(15) of the Income Tax