Noël, A.C.J.:—This is an appeal from assessments to income tax for the taxation years 1958, 1959 and 1960 whereby certain capital cost allowances claimed by the appellant with respect to certain rights called Corner Brook rights and Humber River rights of

Collier, J.:—This is an appeal by the appellant from two assessments by the respondent Minister in respect to her income for the years 1965 and 1966. The Minister included in the computation of the appellant’s income the sum of $33,911.28 for the year

Robinson, J. (orally) :—This case was adjourned on May 6th to this date to give me an opportunity to review the extensive evidence and the many exhibits filed, and to review the arguments and authorities submitted by counsel. Daily transcripts were supplied

CAMERON, D.J.:—This is an appeal from a re-assessment to income dated May 29, 1969 with respect to the appellant’s 1958 taxation year. Prior to the hearing the parties had agreed upon and filed a Stated Case and Question Agreed to Between the Parties,

WALSH, J.:—Appellant appeals from a notice of re-assessment with respect to income for its 1962 taxation year dated June 19, 1967 whereby tax in the amount of $10,404.64 was levied on it arising out of profits on the sale of property owned by it on

PRATTE, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board which affirmed an assessment for gift tax in the sum of $14,985.14 in respect of an alleged gift of property valued at $89,206.73 made in 1960 by the late Rose Pinkus to her

SHEPPARD, D.J.:—The issue is whether the profit derived from property in the Van Bow District in the City of Prince George, and expropriated by the School Board of Prince George, is taxable income as the Minister contends or is not taxable as income

CAMERON, D.J.:—These appeals are from reassessments of income tax dated April 14, 1970 for the years 1967 and 1968, the sole issues being the extent to which the appellant—a physician specializing as an anaesthetist and residing in Charlottetown, Prince Edward

PRATTE, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue confirming the reassessments of the appellant’s income tax for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. These reassessments, as well as the decision appealed from, were made on the

HEALD, J.:—This is an appeal from income tax assessments of the appellant for its taxation years, 1964, 1965 and 1966. For the purposes of evidence and argument the appeals were united because the three cases are one and the same in fact and in law.