Sir LYMAN P. Durr C.J.C.:—The interrogatory referred to us is in the following terms :

APPEAL by taxpayer from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue affirming income tax assessments as levied by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the taxation years 1934 to 1939 inclusive. All material facts are fully set forth in the following

HOGG J.:—On September 11, 1941, the surface rights of Lot No. 40 on Wilson Ave. in the Town of Timmins, Ontario, as shown on Plan M 22 (Sudbury) in the office of Land Titles at Cochrane, were sold at a tax sale by the Treasurer of the

ROBERTSON C.J.O.:—This is an appeal by the County of Lambton from the judgment of Judge Miller, Judge of the County Court of the County of Lambton, dated December 10, 1941, on an appeal by the Village of Point Edward from the equalization of local

COADY J.:—The plaintiff claims the sum of $71.84 for sales tax on gas, manufactured from coal, and supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. By the Special War Revenue Act, R.S.C. 1927, e. 179, and amending Acts and the regulations

PRENDERGAST C.J.M.:—This is a case stated by Magistrate Murray after convicting the appellant for having in his possession parts of a still suitable for the manufacture of spirits without having given notice thereof as required by the Excise Act,

HENDERSON J. A.:—This is an appeal upon a case stated by His Honour, Judge Macdonell, County Judge of the County of York, dated May 21, 1942, in the following terms:

LAJOIE, J.:—Il s’agit d’une plainte basée sur l’article 80 de la Loi de l’Impôt de Guerre sur le Revenu, chapitre 97 S.R.C. 1927 et ses amendements, mais qui en vertu de l’article 82 de la même loi ne peut être portée sans une autorisation du Ministre

LAJOIE J.:—En sa qualité d’officier de la Division de l’Impôt sur le Revenu, Département du Revenu National, S. E. Bernier, après avoir été dûment autorisé par le Ministre du Revenu à porter une plainte en vertu de la section 82 de la Loi de l’Impôt

MACLEAN J.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Minister of National Revenue (hereafter called ‘‘the Minister'') affirming an assessment levied against the appellant company for the income tax for the calendar years 1936 and 1937. The only issue involved