CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals from judgments of the Tax Appeal Board ((1962), 29 Tax A.B.C. 246, 254) dismissing appeals by the appellants from assessments of income tax for the taxation years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958. As the same problem is involved

KEARNEY, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, dated January 8, 1962 (28 Tax A.B.C. 221), dismissing the appellant’s appeal from a re-assessment of its declared income for its taxation year 1959, notice of which was given by the Minister on August 23, 1960, and whereby losses incurred in the construction and sale of homes, amounting to $134,667, during the years 1956 to 1959, inclusive, and claimed in full as deductions by the taxpayer, were disallowed to the extent of 25% thereof or $33,667.

CAMERON, J.:—This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated January 26, 1962 (28 Tax A.B.C. 276) which allowed the respondent’s appeals from re-assessments dated July 25, 1958 and made upon him for

CAMERON, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated April 5,1962 (29 Tax A.B.C. 65), dismissing the appellant’s appeals from re-assessments dated April 25, 1960 and made upon him for the years 1955 to 1958 inclusive. The sole

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from assessments of income tax for the year 1957, 1958 and 1959. In making the assessments the Minister disallowed as a deduction in computing income a loss of $591,495.75 admittedly sustained by the appellant in 1957 in

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal by the Minister from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board (28 Tax A.B.C. 161) allowing the respondent’s appeal and vacating an assessment of income tax for the year 1959. The appeal raises a question on the inter-

BISSONNETTE, J.:—M. le juge Owen expose les faits qui ont donné naissance à cette instance de même que les lois qui régissent la matière sub judice, de sorte qu’il serait superfétatoire de reprendre l’analyse des uns et des autres. Du reste, le juge de la Cour supérieure, dans une argumentation serrée et qui couvre tout le débat exprime une opinion qui me paraît irréfutable. En substance, je ne ferais que répéter les considérations qu’il formule avec soin et grande clarté.

NOEL, J.:—L’appelant excipe devant cette Cour d’une décision de la Commission d’appel de l’impôt, datée du 24 août 1961 (28 Tax A.B.C. 21) par laquelle cette dernière décidait que les paiements à l’appelant faits par Frontenac Shoe Ltée, dont celui-ci était le

Noel, J.:—La compagnie Frontenac Shoe Ltée, de Québec (P.Q.), excipe devant cette Cour d’une décision de la Commission d’appel de l’impôt, datée du 24 août 1961 (28 Tax A.B.C. 1) par laquelle cette dernière admettait la déduction des sommes payées chaque année

Jupson, J. (all concur) :—Both the Tax Appeal Board and the Exchequer Court have found the appellant liable for income tax on certain discounts received in the years 1950 to 1955 inclusive. These receipts came from his purchase of agreements for the sale of land, lease-option agreements on land and mortgages on land. He purchased at a discount and held the securities to maturity. The issue is whether the discounts when received by him were taxable income or accretions to capital.