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
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from an assessment for the taxation year ending January 30, 1970, wherein the Minister of National Revenue assessed the plaintiff on the basis that the profit realized by the plaintiff of $12,604.58 on the purchase and
The Chief Justice (orally):—Where a profit arises from carrying out a construction contract entered into between a taxpayer and a third person, for the taxpayer to establish that that profit is a profit from a partnership business in which he
Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from income tax assessments for appellant’s 1965, 1966 and 1967 taxation years dated December 10, 1968 whereby taxes were assessed in the amount of $24,557.94 for 1965, $39,463.10 for 1966, and $19,470.25 for the year 1967.
Collier, J:—The reasons for judgment given in Debruth Investments Limited v MNR (p 268) shall apply in [these cases]. The appealfs] [are] therefore dismissed with costs.
Collier, J:—This is one of four related appeals which were heard on common evidence. This appellant and the other three are companies. Pursuant to subsection 138A(2) the respondent directed that the four appellants and another company, Don River Heights
Sheppard, DJ:—The issue is whether the Minister should succeed in his assessment in adding $20,775.51 to the defendant’s income for the year 1967, under sections 5 and 23 of the income Tax Act.
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board allowing the defendant’s appeal for the 1970 taxation year. Pursuant to Rule 475, this appeal was set down for hearing, and was argued before me, on a stated case.
