CATTANACH, J.:—These are appeals from the appellant’s assessments to income tax for his 1965 and 1966 taxation years.

ABBOTT, J. (orally for the Court) :—It will not be necessary to hear you, Mr. Bowman. We are all in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge that the payments in issue on these appeals (1) come within the provisions of

Rae, J.:—C. T. Takahashi & Company Ltd. and Douglas Plywood Ltd. were faced with conflicting demands by the plaintiff and by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, to certain moneys which they owed and would otherwise have paid to Canadian

WALSH, J.:—This is an appeal from the assessment made by the respondent with respect to the appellant’s 1962 taxation year, notice of which was given by a notice of re-assessment dated January 30, 1968. The facts giving rise to the notice of re-assessment

KERR, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board in respect of the income tax assessment of the appellant for the taxation year 1964. In computing his income for that year the appellant, who carries on the practice of dentistry

Dumoulin, J.:—This case’s initial paragraph sets out that :

Kerr, J.:—This is a Petition of Right for recovery of $5.674.96*[1] that was paid by the suppliant under protest as federal sales tax imposed by Section 30 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 100, in respect of a product manufactured and sold in Canada by the suppliant, the product being, as the evidence shows, a non-caloric artificial sweetener known as "Sucaryl"

JACKETT, P.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated. February 27, 1970, allowing an appeal from an assessment made under the Estate Tax Act on January 26, 1968, by reducing the aggregate net value of the property passing on the death of the late William Theo Shaw, who died on December 9, 1966, as fixed by that assessment, by an amount of $75,000 being the amount paid under certain insurance policies by reason of the accidental death of the deceased.

The appeal was argued on a special case stated by the parties.

BASTI\ J. (013113 from the Bench) :—I am entitled to assume that the first category of documents do not relate to the affairs of the two taxpayers and, therefore, are privileged.