Noël, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, dated October 21, 1964, dismissing the appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution from an assessment to income tax dated November 8, 1960, whereby a tax in the amount of $145,336.37

CATTANACH, J.:—These appeals by the three taxpayers named in the above styles of cause and which, for the purposes of convenience, will hereinafter be referred to as Quemont, Rio Algom and MacLeod-Cockshutt.

GIBSON, J.:—These appeals were tried together because the same evidence and argument was applicable to each.

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgement of the Tax Appeal Board, 37 Tax A.B.C. 164, which allowed an appeal by the respondent from re-assessments of income tax for the years 1959 and 1960. The issue in the appeal is whether amounts of

KEARNEY, J.:—We are here concerned with an appeal and a cross-appeal from what in effect were two separate decisions rendered in a single judgment by the Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board on September 13, 1963 (33 Tax A.B.C. 231).

KEARNEY, J.:—The present appeal is from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated May 25, 1964 (35 Tax A.B.C. 373), which maintained the respondent’s appeal from an assessment imposed by the Minister on July 13, 1961, whereby the sum of $34,887.50, which

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from re-assessments of income tax for each of the years 1957 to 1963 inclusive. The main issue, which is the same in respect of each of the years in question, is whether, or to what extent, amounts which the Minister treated as profits earned by the appellant in Canada are subject to tax having regard to Section 10(1) (c)*[1] of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.

JACKETT, P.:—This is a Petition of Right by the Executors of the Estate of Rachel McM. M. Hunt seeking a determination that a writ of fiert facias issued out of this Court did not attach certain shares of Aluminium Limited belonging to

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—The appeal is by the British Columbia Power Corporation, Ltd. (called B.C. Power) against an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue; a cross-appeal by the Minister has been withdrawn.

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—Dealing with the motion to strike out paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 of the Minister’s reply the ground is raised that the Minister has no right or jurisdiction to appeal against assessment by the Minister. I observe that Section 98, which is the initial section under Division J, or 98(1) in particular, deals with appeals to the Exchequer Court by either the taxpayer or the Minister and the latter part of the section reads :

‘‘And if the appeal is from the Tax Appeal Board.”