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
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"
