Thurlow, J:—The issue raised by this appeal is whether certain amounts which the respondent paid to Traders Realty Limited in the taxation years 1965 to 1968 inclusive were deductible in computing the respondent’s income for those years.

Urie, J:—The plaintiff appeals from a notice of reassessment dated December 31, 1971 made by the Minister of National Revenue, wherein there was included in the plaintiff’s taxable income for its 1968 taxation year the sum of $185,312 derived from the

Cattanach, J:—These appeals from the appellant’s assessment to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue for its taxation years ending March 31, 1968 and March 31, 1969 involve the applicability of subsection (8a) of section 83A of the Income

Mahoney, J:—This action is an appeal against the disallowance by the Minister of National Revenue of the deduction of interest expense in the amounts of $2,337.32 and $2,610.42 incurred by the plaintiff and claimed in his personal income tax returns for

Thurlow, J (per curiam) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—We have decided not to hear you Mr Chalmers and Mr Storrow.

Urie, J:—The appellant appeals to this Court from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated August 27, 1970, wherein it was held that the respondent properly included in the appellant’s taxable income for the year 1965 the sum of $85,250 derived

Pratte, J (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which allowed in part the appellant’s appeal from the reassessment of his income tax for the 1965 taxation year.

Pratte, J:—Plaintiff is appealing from an assessment, dated May 9, 1972, determining the amount of income tax payable by it for the year 1970.

Cattanach, J:—The plaintiffs named in the styles of cause are barristers and solicitors carrying on their profession in partnership under the firm name and style of Holmes, Crowe, Power and Johnston at the City of Red Deer, in the Province of

Thurlow, J (per curiam—judgment delivered from the Bench):—We do not need to hear you Mr Chalmers and Mr Lefebvre. Notwithstanding the very able argument of Mr Vineberg on behalf of the appellant we are all of the opinion that the