The Assistant Chairman:—In June of 1968, a Mrs Mitchell of Moncton, New Brunswick, a widow of about seventy years of age, let it be known to the mother of Russell Price (the appellant) that she wished to dispose of a parcel of land

The Chairman:—This is the appeal of Marcel Goldhagen from an assessment of tax for the 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 taxation years. The appellant, in this complex appeal, appeared on his own behalf and since the several issues involved in this appeal

Delmer E Taylor:—There are two issues arising from income tax assessments: the first, in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed $4,541.97 and $4,728.24 of the amounts claimed as expenses during the years 1971 and 1972 respectively; and the

Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment in which the Minister of National Revenue increased the taxable income of the appellant by an amount of $284,939.78 for the year 1971. The appellant and the respondent relied,

The Chairman:—This is the appeal of Gordon Glenn Marshman from an income tax assessment dated August 3, 1976, confirmed by the Minister on January 4, 1977, by which the Minister included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the 1973 taxation year

Roland St-Onge:—The appeal of Hugh Bingley Cree came before me on June 17, 1977, at the City of Toronto, Ontario and it is with respect to a loss of some $11,600 that the appellant tried to deduct in 1974 as a business loss incurred

A W Prociuk (orally: February 7, 1978):—This is an appeal by Raza Ullah Makki of the City of Toronto, from the respondent’s reassessment of his income for the taxation year 1975, wherein the respondent disallowed a deduction of $1,494 which the

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—The evidence in this case was heard at Quebec City, Quebec, on May. 2, 1977, and the oral pleadings on May 13, 1977.

Guy Tremblay [TRANSLATION]:—The case at bar was heard at Quebec City on May 12, 1977.

The Assistant Chairman:—The appellant appealed to this Board from a reassessment for income tax for each of the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. When the appeal was called for hearing, the Board was advised that, with respect to the appeal relating