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.

WALSH, J.:—By virtue of an Order made before me at Montreal on June 10, 1970 it was decided that the above two appeals should be tried at the same time, together with an appeal in the case of Aaron Blauer v. M.N.R.

JACKETT, J.:—This is an appeal from the appellant’s assessments under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1964 and 1965 taxation years. The appeal brings into question the correctness of the assessments in so far as they tax the

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