Mahoney, J:—This is an appeal from “net worth” assessments for the years 1965 to 1970 inclusive made by the Minister of National Revenue as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to file income tax returns for the years 1965 through 1968 and his filing of

Kerr, J:—The action in which the present application is made is an appeal by Her Majesty from a judgment of the Tax Review Board allowing an appeal by the defendant from assessments for income tax for his 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 taxation years. In

Heald, J:—These three cases were heard together on common evidence by the consent of all parties. The plaintiff, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue issued income tax assessments against all three defendants who are brothers, bringing into income the

Thurlow, J:—This appeal from reassessments for the years 1946, 1947 and 1951 to1957 inclusive was heard at the same time as the appeal in file number A-53-72 of Mark G Smerchanski and so far as applicable the same submissions were put forward on behalf of this appellant as for the appellant Smerchanski. For the reasons given in the Smerchanski appeal, a copy of which is filed herewith, this appeal also fails and in my opinion should be dismissed with costs.

Thurlow, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from reassessments of income tax made on or about July 8, 1964 for the years 1945 to 1959 inclusive. While two other issues were discussed

Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from his income tax assessment for the year 1969.

Mahoney, J:—The subject-matter of this appeal is the deduction by the defendant of $693.04 losses incurred in respect of his interest in two “tree farms” from other income in his 1969 income tax return. The Tax Review Board allowed his appeal from

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby the plaintiff’s appeal to that tribunal from his assessments by the Minister of National Revenue to income tax for his 1969 and 1970 taxation years was dismissed.

Sheppard, DJ:—The issue is whether the interest of the appellant was purchased by him as an investment and the profit realized was capital as the appellant contends or whether at the time of purchase there was an alternative intention of resale at

Mariland, J (orally for the Court):—We are all in agreement with the reasons delivered by the Court of Appeal. We are of the view that there was no error on a point of law in the reasons of the learned trial judge. This being so,