Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board (now the Tax Review Board) dated August 14, 1972 whereby the defendant’s appeal to that Board from its assessment to income tax for its 1967 taxation year by the Minister

Rowbotham, J:—This action comes before me pursuant to an order of the Master in Chambers made in response to an application by the Sheriff of Calgary for interpleader relief.

Ritchie, J (concurred in by the Chief Justice and Pigeon, J):— I agree with the reasons for judgment prepared for delivery by Mr Justice Laskin, but I am unable to partake of the view expressed by Mr Justice Spence and the majority of

Walsh, J:—This action concerns liability for succession duty, and the valuation for succession duty purposes of a property in Côte St-Luc, being Lot No 101 of the cadastre of the Parish of Montreal, and is governed by the provisions of the

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from the income tax assessments of the appellant by the respondent for the taxation years ending in February of 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969.

Cattanach, J:—These are appeals from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated January 7, 1972 whereby it was held that the plaintiff herein was not entitled to deduct more than 50% of the capital cost allowance in respect of an apartment

Mahoney, J:—This appeal is against a decision of the Tax Review Board upholding a penalty of $215.76 under subsection 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, as it then stood, and $53.78 under section 19 of The

Addy, J:—This is an appeal by way of trial de novo from a finding of the Tax Review Board who found in favour of the taxpayers herein. The three cases were ordered to be tried together.

Heald, J:—These actions are appeals from the judgment of the Tax Review Board maintaining the assessments issued by the defendant through the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the assessment for income tax of each of the plaintiffs for the

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a reassessment of the appellant’s income tax for the 1967 taxation year. That reassessment was made on the basis that the appellant had improperly deducted from its income capital expenditures totalling $60,000.