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

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Hyde, DJ):—This is an appeal from the Trial Division in which the sole question concerning which there has been, during argument of the appeal, any real attack on the judgment appealed from is the meaning of the definition

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated June 14,1973.

Hamid, J:—This is an appeal. by the plaintiff from a reassessment 61 its. 1967 income tax return by the defendant wherein ‘plaintiff's income was revised by including therein the following item:

Per Curiam:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from an assessment under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the taxation year 1967 subject to a reference back for a modification in

Collier J:—This is an appeal on behalf of the Prelutsky estate against an assessment of estate tax by the Minister of National Revenue.

Kerr, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board that allowed the defendant’s appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the defendant’s 1970 taxation year.

Mahoney, J:—The matter in issue is the liability of the plaintiff to include in its income the $50,200 profit made by it on the disposition, in 1968, of an apartment building in Vancouver, BC which it had caused to be built and had

Kerr, J:—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Tax Review Board which dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal in respect of reassess- ments for his 1968 and 1969 taxation years whereby the Minister of National Revenue limited to $5,000 in each of

Kerr, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal with respect to reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue on March 30, 1971 for the plaintiff’s 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 taxation