THORSON, P.:—The appeals herein were brought against the Appellant’s assessments under The Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, Statutes of Canada, 1940, chapter 32, for the years 1946 and 1947 but at the hearing it developed that the dispute

ARCHIBALD, J.:—This is an appeal against the arbitrary assessment made against the appellant, which assessment was affirmed by the Minister of National Revenue, on the 15th day of May, 1950. The assessment is for the years 1941 to 1948 inclusive. The appellant

CAMERON, J :—This is an appeal from a decision of The Income Tax Appeal Board dated August 28, 1951, by which that Board dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a Notice of Assessment dated June 30, 1950, for the taxation year 1948.

CAMERON, J.:—This is an appeal by the taxpayer from a decison of the Income Tax Appeal Board dated September 28, 1950, affirming the income tax assessment made upon the appellant for the taxation year 1947. In assessing the appellant, the respondent had

SAINT-PIERRE, Acting Judge:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue who, on September 17, 1946, fixed the amount of duties owed by Dr. Chipman on the estate of his wife, Maud Mary Angus, at $188,165.20.

WHITTAKER, J.:—The Crown has issued a subpoena requiring the Director of Taxation of the Vancouver district office of the Taxation Division of the Department of National Revenue to give evidence in this case and to produce the income tax returns filed by

ARCHIBALD, J.:—This is an appeal by Byron B. Kennedy of Toronto, Ontario, from the Income Tax Assessment made by the Department of National Revenue for Canada, against him for the year 1948. The appellant complains that there was added to his Income Tax

ARCHIBALD, J.:—The appellant, Alloy Metal Sales Limited, was incorporated on December 27, 1940, to become the organization for the distribution of certain products of the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited. Prior to that date, the International Nickel Company

SIDNEY SMITH, D.J.:—The Company appeals from assessments for income tax covering several years, and also from assessments for excess profits tax which do not cover quite the same period. But since all the assessments seem to be governed by the same principles,

0 ’Halloran, J. A.:— This appeal raises a high constitutional question. It turns on the power of the Minister in charge of the Income Tax Department (who is not a party to the litigation) to refuse on his own sole decision, to produce at the trial