The Chief Justice (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing with costs an appeal by the respondent from its assessment under Part I of the Income

Décary, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, dated December 6, 1972, dismissing Mr Choquette’s appeal.

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals by the two plaintiffs named in the above style of cause from a decision of the Tax. Review Board dated April 2, 1973 wherey the appeals by the plaintiffs from their respective assessments to income tax by the Minister of

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Pratte, J):—The sole question in the appeal is whether interest paid by the appellant in 1959 to its parent company is deductible in computing its “income” for that taxation year for the purposes of subsection

Addy, J:—The facts as established at trial were numerous as well as complicated. The case concerned the alleged responsibility of the appellant towards respondent for its participation in the operations of two other companies which, by various offshore trading operations,

Martland, .I (per curiam):—This appeal is from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed an appeal by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as “the Minister”, from the judgment at trial, in favour of the respondent, hereinafter referred

McFarlane, J (per curiam):—This is an appeal from the judgment of Bouck, J pronounced May 23, 1974, which directed that certain documents, books, records, papers and things “be replevied” to the respondents. Because the validity of income tax Regulation

Judson, J (concurred in by Martland, Ritchie and de Grandpré, JJ):— The Federal Court has held that the appellant, Jack Appleby, although he derived profits from the sale of certain mining shares which were within the exempting provisions of subsection

The Chief Justice (per curiam):—The appeal is. dismissed with costs.

Décary, J:—This appeal relates to the years 1966 and 1967, when the Minister issued an assessment under which he held that the contracts at issue are contracts of sale, not rental contracts. The case was heard by the Tax Review Board, which held that the