NOEL, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Income Tax Appeal Board (23 Tax A.B.C. 233) which affirmed a reassessment with respect to the appellant’s income tax assessment for the year 1955 by which an amount of profits in the sum of

LOCKE, J. (MARTLAND and RITCHIE, JJ., concurring) :—The agreement entered into between Trans Empire Oils Ltd. and William Ford on an unspecified date in February, 1952 recited that the company was the lessee from the Crown of the petroleum and natural gas

MARTLAND, J.:—On June 1, 1956, Nathan Adilman, of Saskatoon, then 67 years of age, entered into a written agreement with Edison Wholesale Ltd., a Saskatchewan corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Edison’’), whereby he transferred to Edison 72 common shares in

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from a re-assessment of income tax made in 1957 in respect of the appellant’s income for the year 1952. Two questions are involved in the appeal, the first being that of whether a profit realized by the appellant in

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, the issue for each of these years being whether the profit arising from a sale made by the appellant in 1955 of certain real property was income

FOURNIER, J.:—Dans cette affaire il s’agit d’un appel de la décision de la Commission d’Appel de l’impôt sur le Revenu du 16 février 1959 relative au calcul du revenu et de la cotisation de l’impôt sur le revenu de l’appelant pour les années

LOCKE, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment delivered in the Exchequer Court by Cameron, J., by which the appeals of the present appellant from assessments for income tax for the taxation years 1946, 1947, 1949 and 1950, except as to certain matters

TASCHEREAU, J.:—Tous les faits de cette cause ont été rapportés dans les raisons écrites de certains de mes collègues, et il est en conséquence inutile de les citer de nouveau. Je ne désire qu’ajouter quelques mots pour préciser davantage ma pensée.

RAND, J.:—This appeal raises the question under the Dominion Succession Duty Act whether in the circumstances payment of succession duty by, or out of property passing to, another than the successor is itself an additional succession to which duty

KEARNEY, J. :—This is an appeal taken from an assessment amounting to $129,374.65 made by the respondent, under the Dominion Succession Duty Act (1940-41), c. 14 and amendments. The appellants were advised thereof by notice dated May 30,