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.

Sheppard, DJ:—The issue is whether the plaintiffs’ concrete septic tanks are “other structures” within paragraph 26(4)(a) of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1970, c E-13.

Walsh, J:—This case turns on the question of whether the net profit realized by the defendant amounting to $75,987.85 resulting from the purchase by it on January 15, 1959, of vacant land known as original lots 635 and 636 on the official

Walsh, J:—This case deals with the attempt of appellant to apply section 85A of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, which was enacted as section 75A in 1952-53, c 40, section 28, substituted in 1955, c 54, section

Walsh, J:—This is a petition by defendant to determine a question of law set out as follows: