Sheppard, DJ:—The issue is whether the payment of $30,000 to the appellant in the taxation year 1966 was a retiring allowance within subparagraph 6(1)(a)(v), as defined in paragraph 139(1)(aj) as alleged by the respondent, or is a capital allowance as

The Chief Justice (concurred in by St-Germain, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing, with costs in the cause, an application that, in its inception, was a motion for leave to file a conditional appearance and a stay under

Gibson, J:—The appellant, a Canadian corporation, obtained certain intangible assets from The Rapids-Standard Company Inc, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, hereinafter called “the US company” by a so-called Deed of Gift, which assets the appellant, after acquisition, put a

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a reassessment of the plaintiff’s income tax for the 1966 taxation year. That reassessment was made on the basis that the plaintiff had improperly deducted from its income a capital outlay of $500,000.

The Chief Justice (ail concurring):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board that dismissed an appeal from the appellant’s assessments under Part I of the Income

Collier, J:—This is an appeal by the taxpayer from the Tax Appeal Board. (now the Tax Review Board) which affirmed a reassessment by the respondent Minister for the 1963 taxation year. The respondent added to the appellant’s income the sums of $50,000. and

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision of the Tax Review Board, dated February 22, 1972, allowing. the appeal by defendant, Compagnie Immobilière BCN Liée, from an income tax assessment dated

Bastin, DJ:—It was agreed that the trial of the action by Elmer T Carlson and that of Gordon E Carlson should be heard together. Both actions seek to recover a penalty imposed by the Minister of National Revenue for late filing of income

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board upholding respondent’s income tax assessments of the appellant for the taxation years 1961 and 1963. The only issue in the appeal is whether certain profits realized by the

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.