WALSH, J.:—This is an appeal from income tax assessments dated April 28, 1969 for the taxation years 1964 and 1965 of the appellant. On or about September 1, 1964, appellant, a Quebec corporation, established a pension plan for its employees entering into

DUMOULIN, J.:—By a notice of motion, argued in Court this 10th day of March, 1971, the respondent sought to obtain:

GIBSON, J.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board, reported [1969] Tax A.B.C. 548, which disallowed the appellant’s appeal against a re-assessment for income for the taxation year 1965.

Judson, J. (all concur) :—The respondents are the executors of the last will and testament of Harris Cox, deceased. The sole issue on appeal is whether there is to be included in the property passing on the death of Harris Cox, the face value of a

WALSH, J.:—This is an appeal from re-assessments dated September 26, 1968 wherein a tax in the sum of $361,204.29 was levied in respect of income for the taxation year 1965 and a tax of nil was levied in respect of income for the taxation

NOËL, J.:—Appellant asks by motion for extension of the time allowed for bringing an appeal to this Court from the assessment in respect of his income for two months in 1965 as well as for the years 1966 and 1967 and the first few months

CATTANACH, J.:—In these appeals the appellant contends that the Minister improperly assessed it with respect to its 1965, 1966 and 1967 taxation years in that he disallowed deductions claimed by the appellant of payments in the amounts of $100,000, $50,000 and

SPENCE, J. (all concur) :—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada ([1969] C.T.C. 641) pronounced after trial by Dumoulin, J. on November 28, 1969.

DUMOULIN, J.:—The above-named firm appeals from the judgment issued on March 11, 1968 in which the Tax Appeal Board confirmed the assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1959 ($1,061.52), 1960 ($69,027.18), 1961 ($73,657.90), 1962 ($137,244.55)

WALSH, J.:—This case came on before me for hearing on the merits at the same time and using the same evidence as that used in the cases M.N.R. v. Robert P. Ouellette and M.N.R. v. John E.