The
Chairman
[TRANSLATION]:—The
appeal
of
Donat
Thibault
against
a
tax
assessment
in
respect
of
the
1973
taxation
year
was
heard
in
Montreal,
Quebec
on
December
12,
1977.
Point
at
Issue
The
point
at
issue
in
this
appeal
is
the
amount
of
a
terminal
loss
of
$4,298
claimed
by
the
appellant
on
the
sale
of
certain
immovables,
in-
eluding
five
garages
the
undepreciated
capital
cost
of
which
was
$4,298,
and
which
the
appellant
did
not
consider
to
have
any
value.
In
the
initial
assessment
dated
August
25,
1975,
the
respondent
established
the
value
of
the
garages
sold
at
$3,675,
thereby
reducing
the
terminal
loss
to
$623.
In
the
second
assessment
dated
November
28,
1975,
the
market
value
of
the
garages
was
adjusted,
and
the
respondent
established
the
value
at
$2,000,
allowing
the
appellant
a
deduction
for
a
$2,298
terminal
loss
(Exhibits
1-2
and
I-3).
Facts
The
appellant
was
represented
at
the
appeal
hearing
by
his
daughter,
Miss
Marguerite
Thibault.
On
February
15,
1973
the
appellant
sold
to
the
latter
lots
at
2629,
2631,
2633,
2637,
2639
and
2641
to
2647
Joliette
Street
in
Montreal
(Exhibit
1-1).
These
lots
included
five.
garages
which
the
appellant
rented
for
the
purpose
of
earning
or
producing
income.
Submissions
Miss
Thibault’s
principal
argument
was
that
the
value
of
the
garages
was
nil
because
they
abutted
an
embankment
of
about
eight
feet
which,
not
being
supported,
properly,
had
caused
certain
garage
walls
to
collapse,
forcing
the
appellant
to
incur
legal
expenses
in
order
to
bring
a
suit
for
damages
against
the
neighbour
who
owned
the
embankment
(Exhibits
A-1
and
A-2).
Miss
Thibault
argued
that,
as
the
garages
were
in
a
poor
state
of
repair,
they
had
no
market
value
at
the
time
of
the
Sale.
To
support
the
market
value
of
the
garages
as
established
in:
its
assessment,
the
respondent
called
Mr
Pierre
Ouellette,
an
appraiser
working
for
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
with
thirty
credits
in
real
estate
appraisal
and
related
subjects
from
the
University
of
Quebec.
In
his
appraisal
report
on
the
five
garages
involved
in
this
appeal
(Exhibit
1-4),
Mr
Ouellette
used
the
appropriate
real
estate
appraisal
methods
authorized
by
the
Appraisal
Institute
of
Canada.
By
also
using
the
cost
technique
and
that
of
the
income
from
the
five
garages,
and
allowing
for
the
damage
mentioned
by
Miss
Thibault,
Mr
Ouellette
calculated
the
market
value
of
the
five
garages
to
be
between
$4,569
and
$3,708
and
assigned
them
a
value
of
$4,000.
In
his
appraisal
report,
Mr
Ouellette
also
included
photographs
of
the
garages,
of
cement
block
construction,
which
gave
the
appellant
a
rental
income
of
$600
per
year.
After
examining
the
photographs
and
Mr
Ouellette’s
appraisal
methods,
I
must
conclude
that
an
appraisal
of
$4,000
for
the
five
garages
appears
reasonable
to
me.
Moreover,
the
appellant
has
not
proven
to
the
Board’s
satisfaction
that
the
value
of
the
garages
was
nil.
In
assigning
these
buildings
a
market
value
of
$2,000
the
Minister
did
not
err;
on
the
contrary,
in
my
opinion
he
was
generous.
Conclusion
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content