JACKETT, P,:—This is an appeal by the Estate of Arthur Warwick Beament from the assessment under the Estate Tax Act in respect of that estate.

JACKETT, P.:—This is a motion by the appellant for default judgment.

Dryer, J.:—Many of the paragraphs of the affidavit of Archie Frank Hale do not meet the requirements of M.R. 523 and I have consequently disregarded them. Some paragraphs of the affidavit are statements of inferences drawn by the deponent from matters said

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing the appellant’s appeal from a reassessment of the appellant’s liability for income tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1962 taxation year.

CATTANACH, J.:—The appeals of the two appellants named in the above styles of cause against their respective assessments to income tax in respect of their 1964 taxation years were conveniently heard together by consent because both appeals arose from the identical

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal by the taxpayer, H. A. Roberts Ltd. from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue is on the contention that the sums received by the taxpayer in 1963 on the cancellation of mortgage agencies, namely $73,633.72 received from

JACKETT, P.:—This is an action for excise tax and penalties in respect of sales, made in the period from June 14, 1963 to May 31, 1966, of certain ‘‘Hydroponic Green Feed Units” and related equipment and goods.

J ACKETT, P.:—This is a Petition of Right to enforce a claim by the suppliant for refund of $339,023.54, being the aggregate of payments claimed to have been made by it to the Crown by reason of demands made by the Crown for taxes which, according

LACOURCIERE, J.:—This is an application pursuant to Section 126A(4) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended, for the determination of the question whether the individual and corporate clients of the solicitor involved herein have a

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from the appellant’s income tax assessment for the 1964 taxation year in which the only question that I have to decide is whether a payment of $15,000 made by the appellant in that year to a third person in certain