Walsh, J:—This is an appeal by plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated June 6, 1973 maintaining. defendant’s appeal of the assessment for its 1968 taxation year and referring same. back to the Minister of National Revenue for

Collier, J:—The plaintiff sues to recover from both defendants the sum of $1,715 alleged to be owing to the Crown by virtue of certain provisions of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1970, c E-13 and amendments.” [1]

Forget, J:—Se prévalant des dispositions de l’article 95 de la Loi du ministère du revenu (Lois du Québec 1972, chapitre 22), The Montreal Copy Centre Ltd. demande à cette Cour d’annuler pour une partie la cotisation que lui transmettait l’intimé le

Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board made November 7, 1972, rejecting plaintiff’s appeal for its 1968 tax year and maintaining a reassessment dated September 14, 1971, amending reassessment date January 26, 1970, adding to

Thurlow, J (per curiam—judgment delivered from the Bench):— This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which confirmed a reassessment of income tax for the year 1969. The issue in the appeal is whether the appellant is

Collier, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Tax Review Board in respect of estate tax. The Minister of National Revenue included in the aggregate value of all taxable property under subsection 34(1) of the Estate

Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the appellant from income tax reassessment by the respondent for the appellant’s 1965 and 1966 taxation years. The issue in the appeal is the applicability or otherwise of subsection 83(3) and (4) of the Income Tax

Kerr, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from assessments of income tax for her taxation years 1962 to 1965 inclusive. In making the assessments the Minister of National

Bastin, DJ:—This is an action by a taxpayer to set aside a reassessment of his income tax for the year 1969, which increased his tax by $8,247.71 with interest of $1,505.20 based on the assumption that he should be deemed to have received

Gibson, J:—In this action under the Estate Tax Act the sole issue to be decided is what is the value of the “property” within the meaning of paragraph 58(1)(o) of the Act that is to be included in the aggregate net value of