Pratte,
J:—It
is
unnecessary
for
the
purposes
of
this
appeal
to
decide
whether
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
F
Sura
v
MNR,
[1962]
CTC
1;
62
DTC
1005,
must
still
be
followed
despite
the
changes
that
have
taken
place
in
Quebec
law
since
1960.
We
are
all
of
the
opinion
that
the
trial
judge
correctly
held
that
appellant
was
not
married
under
the
regime
of
community
of
property
in
1971;
it
appears
to
this
Court
that,
at
least
with
regard
to
the
Crown,
which
is
a
third
party,
the
agreement
amending
the
matrimonial
regime
of
appellant
and
his
wife
had
no
effect
prior
to
registration
of
the
notice
required
by
Art
1266b
of
the
Civil
Code.
The
question
remains
whether,
in
assessing
appellant,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
did
not
include
in
his
income
an
amount
of
$770
which
was,
in
fact,
income
of
his
wife.
In
this
regard,
the
evidence
disclosed
that
the
income
of
$770
derived
from
property
owned
by
appellant’s
wife.
However,
it
further
showed,
in
my
view,
that
this
income
derived
from
property
which
the
wife
bought
with
money
given
to
her
by
her
husband.
In
these
circumstances
the
income
from
this
property,
though
it
is
in
fact
that
of
the
wife,
is
deemed
to
be
that
of
the
appellant
pursuant
to
subsection
21(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
For
these
reasons,
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal
with
costs.
Lalande,
DJ:—I
concur
with
Pratte,
J
except
as
to
the
last
point.
I
conclude
from
the
evidence
that
the
$500
given
by
Mr
Beïque
to
his
wife
in
1940,
to
buy
a
piece
of
land
adjoining
the
family
home,
must
be
considered,
pursuant
to
subsection
21(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
with
the
contribution
of
$1,000
which
Mrs
Be'I'que
had
made
the
previous
year,
the
year
they
were
married,
to
buy
for
her
husband
the
piece
of
land
on
which
this
house
was
built.
In
my
view,
the
investment
income
of
the
wife
derived
from
her
own
funds
and
appellant’s
notice
of
assessment
should
be
amended
to
take
this
into
account.
Email this Content