Kerr, J:—This is an appeal in respect of a reassessment of income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue, dated December 29, 1972, for the plaintiff’s 1967 taxation year, and in particular from a direction made pursuant to subsection 138A(2)

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board allowing defendant’s appeal from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the defendant’s 1969 taxation year. Solomon Weitzman died on December 31, 1968. By

Mahoney, J:—The questions raised in this appeal are the attribution to the late Jacob Byke of certain sums as income under subsection 8(1) of the Income Tax Act for the years 1963 to 1967 inclusive and the disallowance of the deduction

Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from reassessments by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1968 and 1969 taxation years of the plaintiff’s income tax returns.

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