CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals from the assessments of the appellant under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, for the taxation years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

KEARNEY, J.:—Il s’agit ici d’une décision de la Commission d’appel de l’impôt sur le revenu en date du 13 décembre 1951, 28 Tax A.B.C. 358, maintenant l’appel de l’appelant contre une cotisation par laquelle le Ministre ajouta une somme de $11,126.25 au revenu autrement imposable de l’intimé pour l’année 1957.

MARTLAND, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, which confirmed the decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board that, for the taxation year 1958, the appellant was not entitled to deduct from its income

DUMOULIN, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, dated February 20, 1961, with respect to income tax assessments for the respondent’s taxation years 1955 and 1956 (26 Tax A.B.C. 373).

CATTANACH, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board (34 Tax A.B.C. 429) dated January 31, 1964, whereby an appeal, by the respondent against his income tax assessment for its taxation year 1961, was allowed and the pertinent

DUMOULIN, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal. Board, dated June 28, 1963, respecting the income tax assessments of the appellant for the taxation years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.

At the outset of the hearing, both litigants requested and were granted leave to have this appeal tried and decided on the same evidence and according to the same texts of law and jurisprudence as the joint issue of Harry Topper v. M.N.R., [1965] C.T.C. 22.

DUMOULIN, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board (32 Tax A.B.C. 331), dated June 28, 1968, respecting the income tax assessments of the appellant for taxation years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957.

CATTANACH, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board (32 Tax A.B.C. 421), dated July 22, 1963 dismissing the appeal of the appellant from its tax assessments under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, for the

KEARNEY, J.:—The appeal herein was dealt with by consent on the same evidence and argument as that in the appeal of D. Rothenberg v. M.N.R., [1965] C.T.C. 1, in which I delivered written reasons for judgment on December 30, 1964.

For the same reasons set out in the above mentioned judgment mutatis mutandis the appeal herein is dismissed with costs.

Judgment accordingly.

KEARNEY, J.:—We are here concerned with an appeal from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board (28 Tax A.B.C. 53), which dismissed appeals from income tax re-assessments for the 1955 and 1956 taxation years, which added to the appellant’s otherwise taxable