Date: 20010926
Docket: 98-1960-IT-G,
98-1962-IT-G
BETWEEN:
GUY WELLS,
NICOLE WELLS,
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Tardif, J.T.C.C.
[1] The appellants agreed to proceed
on common evidence. The appeals concern the 1994 and 1995
taxation years.
[2] The only point at issue is the
actual value of a painting by the artist
Suzor-Côté entitled Le Moine au
fiasque. The appellants donated the picture, the value of
which is here at issue, to the Musée du
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean in 1994.
[3] In support of their respective
positions, the parties each had two experts testify.
[4] First, the appellant
Nicole Wells testified as to the facts and circumstances
relating to their ownership of the work. She stated that the
painting had very considerable patrimonial value for the Wells
family and lastly noted that the picture had always stayed in the
family.
[5] It was thus established that the
Wells family had acquired a painting as a gift for services
rendered. The Wells family treasured the picture and kept it in a
prominent place that showed its importance in the family's
life.
[6] At one point, the family
apparently received an attractive offer, which was not even
considered. Evidence concerning the value of the painting to the
family and the quality of the title thereto was followed by the
testimony of the appellants' two experts:
Pierre Bévilacqua, an art broker, and
Annie Cantin, a professional art appraiser.
[7] Pierre Bévilacqua
appraised the painting on the basis of a photograph, a copy of
which was filed. I observed that it was a photograph of excellent
quality.
[8] The expert Pierre
Bévilacqua based his appraisal mainly on the size or area
of the canvas and the quality of the frame.
[9] His approach was essentially a
mathematical one that he supplemented with various considerations
such as the value to the family, the quality of the title to the
painting and the value of the frame.
[10] Mr. Bévilacqua correctly
determined the period in which Suzor-Côté
executed this work; he admitted that it was a work from the
painter's youth, done prior to his studies in Europe and
before he reached the maturity that led to a more personal and
characteristic style, developed and perfectly mastered as a
result of his many stays in Europe.
[11] The appraisal essentially consisted in
determining an average value per square centimeter by analyzing a
number of works by the same artist. Mr. Bévilacqua
then multiplied the average price obtained per square centimeter
by the number of square centimeters in the painting he had been
asked to appraise. He referred to and analyzed a number of
transactions, details of which were obtained through the
Internet, and came up with a list of some 30 transactions.
He excluded drawings and also two sales in which the prices, for
no particular reason, were far higher than in the others. He then
determined on this basis the average cost per square
centimeter.
[12] The average price obtained per square
centimeter became the yardstick for his appraisal of the painting
in issue. He discussed and elaborated on painter
Suzor-Côté's talents and international
reputation, speaking at length on the value added by the quality
of the painting's owners and the known continuity of their
ownership. He stated that the quality of the frame was
exceptional and that it might have been sculpted by the painter
himself, whose artistic talents were manifold.
Mr. Bévilacqua showed through his testimony that he
had a general knowledge of Suzor-Côté's
life and career.
[13] However, he himself admitted that his
experience both in appraising paintings by that great master and
in the area of personal involvement in purchases and sales of his
works was limited.
[14] I would characterize the testimony of
Ms. Cantin, the appellants' second expert witness, as
quite engaging. In particular, she emphasized her enthusiasm for
art in general. Ms. Cantin made an honest attempt guided by
an infatuation with, and great passion for, the arts in general,
although she had a particular fondness for all of
Suzor-Côté's works.
[15] She admitted she had never appraised
any works by Suzor-Côté, hastening to add that
she and her spouse owned three canvasses by that renowned
painter. Ms. Cantin and Mr. Bévilacqua, the
appellants' experts, showed by their respective testimony
that they had a number of things in common:
- a very great
admiration of, and profound respect for, the painter
Suzor-Côté;
- very little
experience in appraising Suzor-Côté's
works;
- a rather
mathematical approach to determining the value of the painting:
the method used consisted in first determining an average price
per square centimeter, which value was then multiplied by the
area of the work in question.
[16] The appellants' two experts were
more generalists in the arts. Their fields of expertise
encompassed paintings, antiques, sculptures and so on. I do not
believe that the appellants' experts could be considered as
having exceptional knowledge of
Suzor-Côté's work and career. They were of
course very familiar with the fundamental aspects of his career,
but I do not think they had much experience with transactions
involving his works. In other words, they were not experts who
specialized in the works of Suzor-Côté.
[17] The experts to whom the appellants
turned both favoured the use of comparables in determining the
value of the painting involved in this appeal. Their approach
involved using the values of certain paintings to make a
comparison with the painting they had been asked to appraise.
[18] Mr. Bévilacqua analyzed the
prices obtained in over 20 transactions, while
Ms. Cantin looked at far fewer paintings.
[19] In both cases, the evidence given was
not very elaborate regarding the nature, quality, date, subject
and motif of the paintings used by Mr. Bévilacqua and
Ms. Cantin for comparison purposes.
[20] Mr. Bévilacqua developed
his expertise himself over the years; he entered and worked in
the field of the arts, making it his livelihood. Owner of a
gallery in Sherbrooke, he became informed about
Suzor-Côté through reading, his motivation
being a very keen interest in that great painter. He moreover
said that he considered Suzor-Côté one of the
greatest and most complete artists in Canada.
[21] Mr. Bévilacqua's
testimony revealed that he had hardly ever appraised paintings by
Suzor-Côté. As to purchases and sales of works
by that major Canadian painter, the evidence showed that he had
bought and sold very few, a handful at most.
[22] The respondent called as witnesses two
experts with extensive experience and considerable, indeed
exceptional, qualifications both with regard to assessing the
value of the works of
Marc-Aurèle Côté—later known as
Suzor-Côté—and with respect to that
painter's career.
Respondent's Experts
[23] Alan Klinkhoff, the
respondent's first expert, stated that he himself had bought
and sold more than 100 works by
Suzor-Côté. He had organized and taken part in
various exhibitions and said that he knew a number of collectors
and had very broad knowledge of the value of paintings by
Suzor-Côté, whose works have for a number of
years graced the gallery owned by his family.
[24] Mr. Klinkhoff's appraisal was
based first on highly meticulous and serious analysis of the
painting. He then assessed it from an essentially commercial
standpoint, relying on his extensive knowledge of the market and
of the collectors who might be interested in that type of
painting.
[25] The quality of Mr. Klinkhoff's
testimony revealed his vast experience and also a critical
judgment that brought home the fact that it is not enough to be
an internationally renowned painter for all one's works to be
considered as having comparable or exceptional value. Citing
examples, he explained that two paintings of the same size by the
same painter done fairly close together in time can have
radically different values.
[26] Mr. Klinkhoff testified in an
objective manner. His interest in, admiration of and respect for
Suzor-Côté did not appear to affect his
critical judgment or the objectivity of his comments and
observations. His testimony clearly showed that he had the
necessary knowledge and experience to very credibly assess the
painting's value.
[27] The expert Klinkhoff's
qualifications and lengthy career in the high-level arts world
left this Court with no valid reason to doubt his appraisal.
[28] To disqualify Mr. Klinkhoff's
appraisal in whole or in part, the evidence would have had to
give rise to and support certain criticisms or grievances, which
was not the case.
[29] The respondent then had
Laurier Lacroix testify. Mr. Lacroix clearly had very
extensive knowledge of, and exceptional experience with, the
works of Suzor-Côté. Mr. Lacroix's
approach was much more documented, chronological and academic
than that of Mr. Klinkhoff, whose main characteristic was his
knowledge and vast practical experience with respect to
transactions involving the paintings of
Suzor-Côté and also with respect to the
clients attracted by that artist's works.
[30] Appraising a painting requires the
expert to have thorough knowledge and exceptional experience with
regard to the market and, more specifically, with regard to the
interests and expectations of potential clients. Such appraisal
involves as well a rational approach in which the expert must
disregard his personal feelings and all other subjective elements
or factors.
[31] A number of details can and must be
taken into consideration, such as the period when the work was
done relative to the painter's work as a whole, the subject
matter, the quality of execution, the state of conservation,
etc.
[32] All these elements discredit the
essentially mathematical approach based on the area of the
canvas, in which there is no room for consideration of
subtleties, of the period involved, of the context, of the
painter's mood and other factors.
[33] I find it hard to see how the actual
value of a painting by a major painter whose reputation extends
far beyond the borders of his own country and whose works are
sought after by a large number of collectors can be determined on
the basis of an average price per square inch or per square
centimeter determined almost exclusively by means of an average
based on sales of a certain number of works.
[34] A painter's career is generally
shaped by outside influences, by factors such as family and
health problems, the people with whom he associates and other
experiences, good and bad, which influence or affect his artistic
work.
[35] Like any human being, an artist
evolves, develops and learns before reaching maturity. His works
thus become more characteristic and personal. An artist may also,
for any number of reasons, adopt different styles and be exposed
to various influences before ultimately producing works of a
quality in no way comparable to that of his other paintings.
Consequently, the works of a single painter may be subject to a
great number of variables as regards their market value, and
buyer interest is often influenced by those many factors.
[36] Given that there are so many scenarios
and assumptions, how can anyone imagine, let alone accept, that
the value of a canvas can be determined using an essentially
mechanical and mathematical method?
[37] That type of approach or method may be
of some interest, but it is certainly a questionable one, unless
it takes into consideration transactions involving works executed
during the same period in which the themes and subjects are
similar, unless quality and care of execution are comparable and
so on. The relevance of comparables must be proven through
appropriate evidence, which is not very easily done since it
supposes that the expert has the qualifications and authority
required to catalogue such comparable canvasses.
[38] In the instant case, the
appellants' experts were certainly familiar with
Suzor-Côté. They had such respect and admiration for
him that I believe their critical judgment was somewhat impaired
as a result.
[39] In assessing, analyzing and appraising
a work of art, the artist's signature is definitely an
indicator, but it is clearly not the only criterion or the
dominant one; a goodly number of other factors must also be
considered.
[40] In the instant case, the
appellants' experts attached utterly disproportionate
importance to the signature on the painting. Indeed, their
testimony revealed that their interest in and passion for the
painter affected the quality of their appraisal to such a degree
that they considerably overestimated its true value.
[41] The respondent's experts clearly
had more elaborate and complete knowledge of
Suzor-Côté's works. Alan Klinkhoff's
main qualification was his knowledge of and vast experience in
transactions involving paintings, while that of
Laurier Lacroix was his knowledge of
Suzor-Côté's life, career and overall
output.
[42] Both of the respondent's experts
showed by their testimony that they had remarkable knowledge and
expertise, both theoretical and practical. They testified in a
rational manner and objectively explained the approach and steps
they had taken in making their respective appraisals.
[43] Although their appraisal values
differed greatly—$20,000 (Exhibit I-14)
according to Mr. Klinkhoff and between $4,000 and $6,000
(Exhibit I-19) according to
Mr. Lacroix—their analyses were comparable in many
respects.
[44] After conducting a serious and
professional visual analysis of the painting, both indicated that
it was a work from the painter's youth executed prior to his
going to Europe. Both noted that
Suzor-Côté's stays in Europe had shaped
his career and made a significant contribution to his reaching
artistic maturity.
[45] Both experts observed that the painting
was undoubtedly a copy of, or had been very much inspired by, a
painting by an unknown artist. They also noted a lack of
refinement and a very imperfect technique, particularly in the
line of the hands holding the pitcher.
[46] On the whole, the respondent's
experts found that the only thing characteristic of
Suzor-Côté in the painting at issue in this
appeal was his signature. In their view, it was a painting
executed at the start of his career, when the painter had talent
but no technique. It was something of an exercise the purpose of
which was to practise or to experiment and which was the very
beginning of a very long artistic development.
[47] In Mr. Lacroix's view, that is
moreover the explanation for or the meaning to be given to the
content of a postcard in which Suzor-Côté
denied that the painting was his. According to Mr. Lacroix,
it is highly possible that Suzor-Côté himself
did the painting, but at a time when he was such an inexperienced
novice that he did not want to have his name associated with a
work of which he was clearly not very proud.
[48] The respondent's experts also
stated that the subject is uninteresting, unpopular and of no
value for a collector. They acknowledged that the painting might
have some minimal or marginal value due to the fact that it is by
an artist whose name subsequently became great and prestigious.
The painting is of minimal value, its only merit being that it
serves as a basis for observing the astonishing progress and
development of the painter's talents.
[49] According to the respondent's
experts, this is a painting of little merit which might be of
interest to a very small number of buyers. Its only attraction is
that it is proof of the painter's amazing development.
Mr. Lacroix stated that this is such an extremely rare
reason for buying that it cannot be taken into account. I find
that the appraisals of the respondent's two experts are
summed up very well in the following excerpts from their
testimony.
Mr. Klinkhoff's experience and
qualifications
[TRANSLATION]
Q. Then I will just
ask Mr. Klinkhoff what experience he has dealing with
Suzor-Côté's works in the market.
A. Enormous, Your
Honour. I regularly deal with Suzor-Côtés. I
have brought with me a list containing a selection of the many
Suzor-Côtés I have sold over the past seven,
eight, nine years. I have also brought a list of probably about a
hundred Suzor-Côtés I have appraised for
various clients, including museums and a number of companies, in
fact, it so happens that yesterday, after the trial, I was hired
to go visit a former client of the Dominion Gallery in Montreal
to do an appraisal of a Suzor-Côté at the home
of a woman in Sillery, Quebec. The day before that, I purchased a
bronze by Suzor-Côté. Last week, we sold a
bronze by Suzor-Côté. I am very close to
buying a magnificent Suzor-Côté in Boston. We
buy and we sell them very aggressively in the market. I believe I
can assure you that there is no active gallery in the current
market which has sold and appraised as many
Suzor-Côtés as ours. I should also emphasize
that, in 1978, with my brother Éric, we organized an
exhibition, a tribute to Suzor-Côté, at the
Walter Klinkhoff Gallery, and there was absolutely nothing
for sale. It was just a study which we did for ourselves and for
our clients and for art lovers, teachers, museum directors.
Ultimately . . .
. . .
Chantal Jacquier:
Q. Have you any idea
of the number of appraisals of Suzor-Côtés
that you have done, and for whom?
A. As was done with
respect to paintings sold, I asked my secretary two days ago to
try to put together a small file to give me an idea of how many
we had appraised, and I have a list here, how many pages? One,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, I believe nine pages,
with probably a dozen on each page. Over a hundred, and
that's just since 1993. So I'm not talking about my
experience since starting in 1976. It's just the last eight
years, and not everything is included. It's not
comprehensive, Your Honour.
Possible large differences in values for paintings by the
same painter
[TRANSLATION]
A. Yes. Yes, yes.
Your Honour, to give you an example of the current market, the
woodcock painting I have that is priced at $5,000 has been
hanging around my gallery for three years. Another painting, in
the impressionist style, another painting but impressionist in
style, about the same size as the impressionist painting I have
brought in, I sold for $28,000 on March 12, 2001. I had it
in the gallery for scarcely a week. I believe that gives you an
idea of the strength of the market for certain paintings as
opposed to others.
Assessment of and comment on the painting at issue in the
instant case
[TRANSLATION]
Q. The painting of
the monk, can it be considered as a polished work by the master
Suzor-Côté? Is it a masterwork or not?
A. Oh, not at all.
As I said in the original report and I perhaps mentioned it in my
confirmation, in the second report I prepared in January, it is
the worst painting I have ever seen by this artist, and I find
nothing of merit in it other than the fact that it is by
Suzor-Côté.
Q. Are the
distinctive characteristics of Suzor-Côté to
be seen in the painting?
A. Not at all, at
all, at all.
Q. And you spoke
about paintings from various periods, what other criteria are
considered in the market apart from the period? You have made
some mention . . .
A. The period
. . . quality of the work, mastery, the fact that a
painting or paintings by Suzor-Côté are sought
after, there is a kind of . . . one can perhaps make a
kind of graph, of . . . what's the word, a
barometer?
Q. A scale.
A. Scale, scale.
Some paintings are more sought after than others, even paintings
from the same period . . . some suggest . . . some finishes are
more sought after than others, but, with this painting, I
had . . . with all my knowledge of
Suzor-Côté's work, I said to myself that
there would be a very small market for this work, that the market
would have no interest or very little interest in this work
because, as I told you, Your Honour, it is the worst painting I
have ever seen by this painter.
Expert Laurier Lacroix's qualifications
[TRANSLATION]
Q. Mr. Lacroix,
can you begin by stating what training and what degrees you have
in art history?
A. I have a
bachelor's degree in art history from Sir George Williams
University, now Concordia, a master's degree in art history
from the Université de Montréal and a doctorate in
art history from the Université Laval.
. . .
Q. With respect to
Suzor-Côté, have you organized an exhibition
concerning him?
A. Yes, in 1987, I
prepared the Suzor-Côté exhibition, Retour
à Arthabaska, which was presented at the Musée
Laurier in Arthabaska.
. . .
Q. And are you
currently preparing an exhibition?
A. Yes. For two
years now, I have been preparing a retrospective of
Suzor-Côté's works which will be presented
at the Musée du Québec in October 2002 and
subsequently at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa in the
winter of 2003.
. . .
A. That is to say
that I have been working on Suzor-Côté for
approximately 20 years. If I told you all the stories I have
heard about his family and about Suzor-Côté,
there would be enough for a serial. And it would not be a
documentary; it would be a very explosive television series.
. . .
. . .
Q. All right. We are
going to come to the painting itself and to the period prior to
1892—91, excuse me—that is, prior to his leaving for
Paris. . . . Can you tell us what is known about the
artist's works from that period?
A. What I've
been able to verify at the archives of the Académie
commerciale d'Arthabaska, where Suzor-Côté
studied from the age of five and a half, where he did his primary
and secondary schooling, is that he was indeed very much
interested in drawing. At the Brothers of the Sacred Heart, there
was an art teacher who encouraged him, and we know of some
drawings and paintings he did when he was 14 and 15 years
old, so he was relatively young. Perhaps he did some prior to
that, but I don't know whether they have been preserved. In
any case, I've never seen them. Those I have seen are
preserved in the collection his brother bequeathed to the
Séminaire de Québec; his brother, who was a priest,
made a large gift of things that remained, particularly of family
archives, to the Séminaire de Québec, and that is
where the works of his youth are to be found, and there are also
some at the home of a grandniece of
Suzor-Côté's,
Mrs. Farmer St-Jean, so through the family once
again; one need only look at these relics, if you will, of his
youth. What . . .
Q. Are they copies
. . .?
A. They are always
copies. Sometimes the source is obvious. It can be said that it
is a copy of such and such a painting. Sometimes it is less
clear. In fact, it can't be said exactly who did the
original, but, in all cases, because of the verification of the
subjects and the ways of dealing with such copies, one senses
someone who was copying another's work rather than one who
was attempting to create an original work. This was someone who
was learning . . .
. . .
A. Yes, in fact,
perhaps I should say that, as regards this research which was
started on Suzor-Côté, I at first didn't
have the exhibition contract for the Musée du
Québec; I was interested in
Suzor-Côté's work as such, and I began
with a systematic examination of everything that had been written
on Suzor-Côté. I went through all the sales
catalogues I could gain access to in order to constitute a data
base to be able to know what Suzor-Côté had
painted, what he had produced in the way of paintings and
drawings in his lifetime. So I have a data base of approximately
2,000 works and of titles of works that I am trying to track
down, works that are documented, works by
Suzor-Côté that have existed, that he did . .
. because we need to . . . more in order to know a
little about what his production was. So, as part of this
research, I had read that he had done a St-Peter repentant for
the Hôtel-Dieu, and so I went to the Hôtel-Dieu
as well, and what the Hôtel-Dieu has is a little easel
painting, smaller than this one, depicting St. Peter
repentant, by Suzor-Côté. It is thus not a
fresco at all; it is a small canvas. . . .
Appraisal of the painting
A. Yes, because,
first of all, it is very awkward and in fact gives the impression
that it is an exercise; in its most important parts, the
technique is perceptibly laboured. There is filling in: the
entire background and all of the table. I mean, there are two
interesting parts: the face and the bottle. That is the painting.
The rest is nothing; it's . . . and there is
virtually nothing on the surface either.
So it can be seen that Suzor took great pains in these two parts,
he took pains; one senses the brush, the line well
turned—well and not well at the same time because he did
not yet know how to do a hand; he has not yet studied how to draw
a hand, so the fingers are a little . . . it looks more
like a glove than a hand. The wrinkles on the face, one senses,
are very . . . are very stereotyped; they are too
smooth; too much drawing has gone into them; one senses that he
is holding his breath and that he . . . this is not the
painter who will work with bravura as he subsequently did. He is
learning; he is transcribing an image. I believe one even sees
traces of the squaring—that is, what he used to transfer
his image onto the surface—in the bottle and in the hand. I
think one still sees the traces of the squaring that was used in
transferring the work in a more mechanical fashion. So that is
what we see. We see the work of someone who will become a great
artist; one does not yet know it at that time; at that time, he
is an apprentice to a church painter and decorator and wants to
learn other things, acquire other knowledge than he can in his
work on decorating jobs. So he practised doing easel paintings,
as he did with L'Italienne, as he did with
St-Pierre repentant, as he did with this painting
here. That's what we learn from this.
Q. Is there a
possibility that the painting's frame was done by the
artist?
A. No, none. No,
there is none. However, I must say that the person who had it
framed loved this painting because it is a painting of
. . . there is a fairly large edge-strip with two or
. . .
. . .
. . . the works prior to 1891 remained in the family
and were not put on the market. This is not the
Suzor-Côté who is sought after; this is not
yet the artist who has commercial value, but, by association, one
might perhaps think it would be worth a fairly reasonable amount
because, in my view, without Suzor-Côté's
signature, this work would be worth between $600 and $800 on the
market, precisely because of the frame. Because it has been
signed, the archival, documentary value increases the worth of
the work a little. And one sees that a market trend
. . . collectors are also sensitive to works from the
artist's early career in Europe, works which are not yet all
very interesting, but there is a certain market trend and that is
what I wished to indicate by those figures.
Q. Your range of
between $4,000 and $6,000, you told me that you had not
understood that it was an appraisal in December 1994. Is your
appraisal the same, considering what must be established based on
market value at December 21, 1994?
A. No, I believe I
would be inclined to lower it somewhat to the extent that 1994,
1995 was immediately after the major crisis of 1992, when the
market collapsed. The recovery was under way, but it was not at
all this type of work that was being reappraised or rising in
price on the market. So my price would be rather between perhaps
$3,000 and $4,000 for 1994.
Criticism of the mathematical approach
Q.
Mr. Bévilacqua said yesterday that the five works
referred to in your report yielded a coefficient of 5.78 per
square centimeter, which would mean that Le moine, by his
calculations, would be worth $44,000 based on its dimensions.
What do you think of that?
A. I believe it is
an argument that does not hold water, in view of the information
we have on other sales, even the most recent, of more important
works. Even adding taxes and auctioneers' commissions, we get
prices that are, when all is said and done, reasonable, ranging
from less than $10,000 to slightly less than $20,000 on average
for original works in which one begins to see the emergence of
talent and also, I would say, of the major themes that will
define Suzor-Côté's work.
So I would find it very difficult to use this statistical,
mathematical ratio to say that, given this, the painting is worth
$44,000 or thereabouts. In my view, that is not an argument
. . . it is not the kind of calculation that can enable
us to arrive at an appraisal of this painting.
[50] When it comes to appraisals, experts
frequently come to radically different conclusions and the Court
must often determine a happy medium.
[51] In the instant case, the quality of the
respondent's experts and their vast and exceptional
experience were such that I noted nothing that might discredit
their appraisals or affect the value thereof.
[52] Their appraisals were conducted in
accordance with good practice, taking into account relevant
distinctions and particularities and the many specific features
characterizing the painter's works as a whole. It is my view
that the appraisals constituted professional work of very high
calibre that the appellants' evidence did not detract from or
devalue in any way whatever.
[53] The conclusions of the two experts of
course reveal a considerable discrepancy, which might have the
effect of diminishing the overall quality of the work they
performed, but, given the particular nature of their careers and
of their respective experience and knowledge of the painter,
there is ultimately no fundamental contradiction or difference of
opinion except that the expert Klinkhoff has more extensive
experience with the market and collectors.
[54] He based his appraisal on essentially
material and commercial considerations, which constitute the only
real basis and reference for determining actual value.
[55] The expert Lacroix, whose career has
been more in the area of writing and teaching than of business
pure and simple, made a presentation based on his extensive
knowledge of the painter, his works and his career in
general.
[56] Mr. Lacroix's knowledge of
Suzor-Côté's work as a whole is
exceptional, and he appraised the painting based on theoretical
scales which he himself has defined and extensively documented
without reference to the commercial aspect. His many studies,
analyses and efforts have enabled him to discover
Suzor-Côté's ultimate talents. He
therefore appraised the painting in terms of the richness,
quality and talent that the painter expressed through his other
paintings and, having done so, concluded that the work at issue
is of no interest or value, except for a very limited number of
people who often have very little concern for market values.
[57] Consequently, I determine that the
value of the painting entitled Le moine au fiasque, a work
executed by the painter Suzor-Côté in 1890,
was $20,000 on December 21, 1994, the date on which the
appellants made the donation to the Musée du
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
[58] The appeals are dismissed, with
costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of October
2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of January 2002.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
98-1960(IT)G
BETWEEN:
GUY WELLS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal
of Nicole Wells
(98-1962(IT)G) on June 21 and 22, 2001, at
Québec, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif
Appearances
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Jean Dauphinais
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Chantal Jacquier
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1994 taxation year is dismissed, with costs, in
accordance with the attached Reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of October
2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of January 2002.
Erich Klein, Revisor
Email this Content