P.R.
Dussault,
T.C.C.J.:—I
find
myself
obliged
in
this
case,
as
in
others,
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
On
the
question
of
appraisal,
as
is
known,
an
export
report
is
required
in
order
to
challenge
the
appraisal
which
the
Department
has
chosen
for
assessment
purposes.
This
is
a
purely
technical
question.
In
the
instant
case,
there
was
no
export
report,
and
no
expert
was
heard.
As
to
the
penalty
aspect,
it
is
not
very
important
in
my
mind
that
a
cheque
was
written
in
March
1987
for
$1,000
and
another
cheque
paid
out
of
the
June
income
tax
refund,
or
that
it
was
a
cheque
issued
in
March,
but
which
was
apparently
payable
in
June
out
of
an
income
tax
refund.
That
is
not
what
is
important
to
me.
On
the
one
hand,
I
have
already
put
forward
my
opinion
concerning
the
signing
of
preliminary
agreements
on
appraisals
relating
to
gifts
of
works
of
art,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
the
main
point.
I
do
not
deny
the
fact
that
one
may,
in
certain
circumstances,
give
an
asset
which
is
worth
much
more
than
the
price
paid.
However,
I
cannot
accept
that
there
is
a
preliminary
agreement
on
the
relation
between
the
price
paid
and
the
appraisal
to
come
and
that
someone
accepts
such
an
agreement
without
knowledge
of
the
work
and
with
absolutely
no
knowledge
whatever
of
the
asset
which
would
eventually
be
given.
I
believe
that
one
is
negligent
if
one
does
not
go
further
in
one's
checks,
particularly
of
the
persons
with
whom
one
does
business.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
also
another
important
aspect
in
the
instant
case
pertaining
to
dates
which
are
manifestly
false.
I
cannot
accept
the
falsification
of
the
date
of
documents,
even
if
it
is
not
the
appellant
himself
who
did
so,
or
that
one
can
subsequently
use
those
documents
in
order
to
claim
a
deduction.
Certain
documents
submitted
in
support
of
a
gift
indicate
a
date
in
1986,
whereas
the
evidence
shows
very
clearly
that
the
gift
could
only
have
been
made
in
1987.
While
a
deposit
could
have
been
made
toward
the
pur-
chase
of
a
work
of
art
which
could
eventually
be
given
to
a
museum
—
a
$1,000
deposit
which
was
apparently
paid
in
November
1986
—
it
cannot,
however,
be
claimed
that
a
specific
work
of
art
was
given
to
that
museum
in
1986,
when
the
same
work
was
still
for
sale
at
an
auction
in
Montreal
in
March
1987.
On
this
point,
the
appellant
himself
said
that
he
had
received
the
work
and
had
held
it
for
a
few
days
in
1987
before
another
person
took
it
upon
himself
to
deliver
it
to
the
museum.
For
these
reasons,
I
find
myself
obliged
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content