Addy, J:
1 The judgment of the Tax Review Board dated October 6, 1972 is set aside and the matter will be referred back for reassessment of the automobile expenses of the taxpayer for the taxation years 1968 and 1969 on the following basis:
2 The following car expenses shall be considered expenditures incurred for the purpose of earning income—for 1968, 85% of car rental cost and 64% of other expenses;
Heald, J:
Cattanach, J:
1 This is an application made by Her Majesty that judgment be issued on the pleadings and other documents pursuant to Rule 341 of the General Rules and Orders of the Federal Court of Canada which rule reads:
341. A party may, at any stage of a proceeding, apply for judgment in respect of any matter
(a) upon any admission in the pleadings or other documents filed in the court, or in the examination of another party, or
A W Prociuk (orally: June 12, 1975):
A W Prociuk (orally: January 27, 1975):
The Chairman (orally: May 13, 1975):
1 This is an appeal by Hugo Deuschle against reassessments of the Minister of National Revenue for the 1969, 1970 and 1971 taxation years.
2 The case is one of those that fall under the trading case heading and involves several transactions in the City of Penticton commencing in or about 1969.
Roland St-Onge (orally: March 3, 1975):
1 This appeal of Ross H Stanfield is from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue dated June 8, 1973, wherein taxes with interest in the amounts of $143.04, $143.04 and $1,727.83 were levied in respect of the 1967, 1968 and 1969 taxation years.
The Assistant Chairman:
1 This is the appeal of Dr Emile S Shihadeh from an income tax assessment wherein a tax in the amount of $3,362.70 was levied against the appellant in the 1969 taxation year.
2 The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant qualifies for the exemption from taxation provided for in Article VIIIA of the Canada-US Tax Convention.
A J Frost:
1 This is an income tax appeal in respect of the appellant's 1969 and 1970 taxation years.
Thurlow, J (per curiam):
1 This appeal is from a judgment of the Trial Division which dismissed the appellant's claim for repayment of money paid by Dominion Engineering Works Limited as taxes in respect of the sale price of a paper making machine constructed by Dominion Engineering Works Limited for the appellant and installed in the appellant's premises by an engineering firm known as Rust Associates Ltd.
