SEATON, J.:—The applicant seeks to invoke the summary procedure in Section 126A of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952,

CATTANACH, J.:—This is an appeal by the executors of the estate of Harris Cox, from an assessment by the Minister under Section 24 of the Estate Tax Act* [1] whereby the Minister included, in computing the aggregate net

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is by the Minister of National Revenue on the issue whether or not the respondent, an anaesthetist, should be allowed for the year 1965 automobile expenses for two round trips each day from his home to the Royal Jubilee

KERR, J.:—This is an appeal from income tax assessments in respect of the appellant’s taxation years 1964, 1965 and 1966* [1] whereby the respondent disallowed deductions claimed by the appellant in computing its income as having been paid by it

ABBOTT, J. (concurred in by Fauteux, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Hall, JJ.) :—This appeal is from a judgment of the Exchequer Court which allowed an appeal under Section 58 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 100, as amended, by

DUMOULIN, J. :—This i is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, dated September 8, 1964, in respect of the assessment of Upstream Holdings Inc., of the city of Montreal, for the taxation year 1962.

JUDSON, J. (all concur) :—The problem in these two appeals is essentially the same as that in the Smythe appeals [[1969] C.T.C. 558]. Wilbour Lee Craddock and Stanley Curtis Atkinson were the principal shareholders in a private Saskatchewan corporation

N OËL, J.:—The respondent, by motion, moves that this Court quash the appellant’s notice of appeal, dated May 15, 1969, by which the latter appealed from an assessment for the year 1964, confirmed by a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, dated January

DUMOULIN, J.:—Clear-cut and uncomplicated, the facts giving rise to the moot question of law at issue are set out in the parties’ “Agreement as to Facts’’ filed of record on June 20 last.

GIBSON, J.:—This is an income tax appeal against re-assessments for the taxation years 1964 and 1965 of the appellant company Susan Hosiery Limited arising out of the disallowance of a deduction of $238,000 described in the re-assessments as “contributions made to