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

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