Le Juge en chef (oralement au nom de la Cour):—Il ne sera pas nécessaire d’entendre les procureurs de l’intimé.
Nous sommes -tous d’avis qu’il n’a pas été démontré que le jugement a quo est erroné.
Collier, J:—This is an appeal against a reassessment by the respondent for the year 1965. The Minister added to the appellant’s income for that year the sum of $60,851.06, “a deemed dividend from a personal corporation under subsection 67(1) of the
The Chief Justice (orally):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division holding that the respondent was entitled, in respect of its 1967 taxation year, to the exemption provided for by subsection 83(5) of the Income
Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated March 20, 1972 which dismissed the appellant’s appeal! from a reassessment of its income tax for its 1968 taxation year, terminating March 31, 1968, whereby the Minister assessed the net
Thurlow, J:—This appeal arises from an assessment of tax for the 1966 taxation year of the appellant in respect of an amount of $1,- 201,079 referred to in the notice of reassessment as “deficient net revenue of vessel FEDERAL MONARCH recovered
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby the assessment of the plaintiff to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue was confirmed on the ground that a gain realized upon the sale of property was
The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board, delivered on November 22, 1963, allowing the appeal of Donat Beaupré from the assessment by the Minister of National Revenue dated June 21, 1967, in
Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from income tax assessments for the taxation years 1963 to 1971 inclusive. The aggregate amount so assessed was $6,177,968.
Kerr, J:—The appellant appeals from reassessments for the taxation years 1966 and 1967 whereby the respondent added $33,600 to the appellant’s income for 1966 and $24,000 for 1967.
Collier, J:—This appeal was heard at the same time as another appeal (MacMillan Bloedel Industries Limited v MNR, p 299). In this case there are two points to be decided. In the other case there is only one
