Kerr, J:—These appeals are against income tax assessments of the three appellants for their 1964 and 1965 taxation years. They were commenced in the Exchequer Court. They were heard on common evidence at Vancouver. I will be referring to the appellants as “Pay-Less”,

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board dismissing an appeal by the plaintiff from its assessments for the taxation years 1966 and 1967. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled

The Chief Justice (per curiam):—For only two or three taxation years, the Income Tax Act, by section 40A thereof,* [1] provided a special deduction as a “Production Incentive” for manufacturing and processing

Kerr, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Appeal Board pronounced on December 8, 1970, dismissing an appeal by the appellant executors of the estate of Philip Atlee Wisener from a reassessment under the Estate Tax Act

Gibson, J:—As of November 1, 1966 the respondent, Gordon W Pannell, owned about 31% of the capital stock of Roto-Tone Gravure Services Limited, the balance being owned by three other persons.

The Chief Justice (orally, all concur):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division ‘dismissing an appeal from the appellant’s assessments under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1965 and 1966 taxation

The Associate Chief Justice:—These are appeals by Pigott Investments Limited (hereinafter sometimes called Pigott, which prior to a change of name in 1973 was known as Pigott Construction Company Limited) from assessments for the 1967, 1968, 1969 and

Heald, J:—These actions are appeals from income tax assessments for the taxation year 1969.

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Tax Appeal Board dated May 27, 1966 confirming an assessment by the respondent dated June 19, 1961 wherein the following amounts of income tax in respect of income were assessed against the

Thurlow, J:—In my view the second, third and fourth points put forward by counsel for the respondents as justifying leave to appeal raise questions that are fairly arguable. I am not persuaded that the same can be said of the first or the