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

Per curiam:—This is an application in writing under Rule 324 for a consent judgment in an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division, the effect of which consent judgment would be that ‘the judgment of the Trial

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen from a decision of the Tax Review Board, by which decision that Board allowed the appeals of the defendant from assessments to income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue for the defendant’s

Decary, J (judgment delivered from the Bench):—The appeal is from income tax assessments for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 confirmed by a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board on September 3, 1970 and pertaining to the profit realized by the appellant

Walsh, J:—The question to be decided in the present case is whether the late Nathan Izenberg was, immediately prior to his death which occurred on August 18, 1967, competent to dispose of the capital of the estate of his wife, the late Charlotte Woldsker,

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff is a chartered accountant not in active practice. His appeal against his 1966 and 1967 personal income tax assessments was allowed, in part, by the Tax Review Board. During those years his income was derived from employment in