Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board allowing an appeal from the reassessments of the defendant’s income tax for the 1965, 1966 and 1967 taxation years. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the defendant is

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench, per curiam):— In these two appeals the question is whether the Trial Division erred in upholding assessments, under Part I of the Income Tax Act, of

Thurlow, J (concurred in by Sweet, DJ):—The issue in these appeals is whether the income tax returns of a defunct company, which I shall refer to as Pelon, for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966, upon which the income tax assessments of the

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the reassessment of the plaintiff by the defendant for the taxation year 1971 on the basis that the plaintiff was an officer or servant of Canada within the meaning of subparagraph 139(3)(c)(i) of the Income

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals from a judgment of the Tax Review Board, dated June 12, 1972 whereby appeals by the defendant herein from assessments to income tax for the defendant’s 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 taxation years were allowed.

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