KERR, J.:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the appellant’s 1965 taxation year. The question for determination is what part of the cost of certain property in Toronto, consisting of land and an office building, purchased by the appellant, can reasonably be regarded as being the ‘ consideration ’ ’ for ‘ disposition” of the building for the purposes of Section 20(6)

(g) of the Income Tax Act.

CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, [1968] Tax A.B.C. 700, whereby the appeals of the eleven respondents named in the above styles of cause with respect to their respective assessments to income tax for their 1964

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is by Adanac Apparel Ltd. against an assessment for the years 1965 and 1966 alleged to be in error, aS made on the basis that 715 Fisgard Street, Victoria, B.C. was acquired for the business of dealing in land or

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is by A.I.M. Steel Limited against the re-assessment by the Minister wherein an income tax of $2,507.75 was levied for the year 1965. The issue is whether a fence business was carried on during the years 1960 and 1961 by

Kerr, J.:—This is an appeal from the appellant’s income tax assessment under Part I of the Income Tax Act for its 1967 taxation year, which ended on July 31, 1967. The issue is whether a profit of $371,969.27 realized by the

WALSH, J.:—This is an appeal by the Minister from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board dated August 29, 1968 allowing respondent’s appeal from an estate tax re-assessment dated January 26, 1967, levying a tax in the amount of $26,430.41 in respect of

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—Each appellant corporation appeals from the direction of the Minister under Section 138A(2) of the Income Tax Act that the corporations be deemed to be associated”, and under Section 138A(3) (b) (ii) seeks to vacate that

SHEPPARD, D. J.:—This appeal is from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1962 and 1963, on the ground that the sums realized were not taxable income of the appellant but capital. The opening alleges that the sums from

SHEPPARD, D. J.:—This appeal is from the re-assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the taxation year 1962 by adding two items known as the Comox Street Property and the Main Street Property to the appellant’s taxable income. The appellant contends

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—This appeal is from the Tax Appeal Board on the ground that the assessment of the appellant was in error in assessing him for the year 1963 in respect of $31,066.32 as the recovery of a capital cost allowance.