Roland St-Onge:—This appeal is from an assessment dated September 22, 1970, wherein federal tax in the amount of $38,880.60 and provincial tax in the amount of $10,782.83 was levied in respect of income for the 1969 taxation year.

The Assistant Chairman:—The appeal of Mr Lucien Lapointe from assessments for the taxation years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 was heard at Ottawa on November 24, 1972.

Walsh, J:—These two cases were heard together since the facts are identical save for certain differences in the amounts of the earnings of each of the defendants from their personal farming operations and in the amounts they received as remuneration from

Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal against the reassessment of the plaintiff’s 1967 income tax return whereby there was added to his income an amount of $6,037.56, being his share of the reduction for that year of a reserve established under section 85B

Thurlow, J (judgment delivered from the Bench, concurred in by Sheppard, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a reassessment of income tax for the year 1965. By the reassessment in question the

Addy, J:—This is an application by the Minister of National Revenue by way of appeal from the Tax Appeal Board whereby the latter held that, for the taxation year 1964, Furnasman Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Furnasman”) and Furnasman (Metal) Ltd

Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from its income tax assessment by the defendant for its 1971 taxation year. At issue, in these proceedings, is the nature of a payment made by the plaintiff in the sum of $150,000. The plaintiff contends that

Sweet, D.J.:—The plaintiff was incorporated under the laws of Ontario by letters patent dated November 13, 1964. Included in its objects is:

Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from the defendant’s assessment of plaintiff’s income tax return for the taxation year 1967. In issue in these proceedings is the propriety

Kerr, J:—This is in respect of an application pursuant to paragraph 174(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act. I am informed that it is the first application under that section of the Act, and that there is no jurisprudence relating