Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing an appeal of the appellant herein from assessment to income tax for his 1961 taxation year. The merits of the appeal were not argued before the Tax Appeal Board. The

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals from the assessment of the appellant to income tax for its 1966 and 1967 taxation years by the Minister.

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated July 22, 1971 in respect of the income tax reassessment for the appellant’s taxation year 1967.

Heald, J:—This is an application by Notice of Motion for an order striking out the Statement of Claim herein.

Gibson, J:—The issue in this appeal requires the determination of the character of the receipt obtained by the appellant in its taxation year 1968 arising out of the sale in 1968 of a parcel of vacant land which it had acquired on incorporation in the

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent confirming the reassessments of the appellant’s income tax for the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. These reassessments were made on the basis that, to the declared income of the appellant for those years, were to be added amounts of $70,367.50 for 1964, $374,019.94 for 1965, $350,197.14 for 1966, $80,901.71 for 1967 and $35,218.75 for 1968.

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent confirming the reassessments of the appellant’s income tax for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969. These reassessments were made on the basis that, to the declared income of the appellant for those

Gibson, J:—This appeal involves the validity of the disallowance of the deduction for income tax purposes of the payments in each of the years 1965 to 1968 made by the appellant pursuant to clause 3(b) of a contract between it and Traders Realty Limited

The Chief Justice and Thurlow, J (delivered from the Bench):— Except in one respect, we adopt and rely on the reasons for judgment of the Associate Chief Justice.

Judson, J (concurred in by Abbott, Ritchie and Spence, JJ):—The Tax Appeal Board held that Income Tax Regulation 1101(1) was ultra vires as conflicting with subsection 20(2) of the Act. In doing so it followed a line of its own decisions going