|
Citation: 2004TCC464
|
|
Date: 20040817
|
|
Docket: 2001-4224(EXP)G
|
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PAUL MARÉCHAL,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bowman, A.C.J.
[1] The issue in this appeal is the
fair market value ("fmv") on November 10, 2000, of a ceramic
sculpture created by a well-known Quebec sculptor,
Louis Archambault, which the appellant donated to the
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. The Canadian Cultural Property
Export Review Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board")
determined the fmv to be $5,000. The appellant contends that the
fmv is $8,000.
[2] The appellant acquired the
sculpture for $1,719.23 in December 1999 at l'Hôtel
des encans at Montréal. The price was $1,300 but taxes and
commission brought it up to $1,719,23.
[3] I shall endeavour to state what I
understand to be the appellant's case. Mr. Maréchal
is highly qualified in the field of art and has a Master's Degree
in art history. He is the curator of the art collection of Power
Corporation. The ceramic sculpture in question, entitled "Head",
was given by him to the Museum and the Board requested an
appraisal of the work. The Museum obtained one dated September
29, 2000, from Eric Devlin, an art dealer and owner of
Galerie Eric Devlin, in the amount of $8,000. In
response to the Board's request for further substantiation of the
figure of $8,000, Eric Devlin, on December 29, 2000, sent
the Board a letter from Mr. Simon Blais of
Galerie Simon Blais, who also supported the valuation
of $8,000.
[4] Mr. Maréchal argued that
for the Board to reject these two valuations and to substitute
its own figure of $5,000 is arbitrary and unjustified.
[5] The expert witness called by the
respondent, Joyce Millar, put the value of the work at a
maximum of $3,500. At the time she made her valuation she was
unaware of the Board's determination of $5,000 or the appraisals
of Devlin and Blais at $8,000.
[6] Mr. Maréchal, relying
upon a definition of fmv which includes the phrase "the highest
price" which a willing and knowledgeable vendor and purchaser
would agree upon, contends that since we have a variety of
figures ($1,719.21, $3,500, $5,000 and $8,000) the highest should
be chosen which is $8,000. As a preliminary matter I can dispose
of this contention fairly quickly. Where the Board or this Court
has the obligation of determining the fmv of a property and is
faced with several different figures it does not fulfil that
obligation by picking the highest. It is not bound by any
valuation and is not obliged to pick any one. Its obligation is
to do the best it can to arrive at a true value, difficult as
this may be. This may involve rejecting all valuations, or taking
material from some or all of them and arriving at a conclusion
that differs from all of the valuations. It is not a mechanical
process. It is one that requires weighing all of the material
before it and applying its best judgment to arrive at a correct
result.
[7] I turn now to a consideration of
the fmv of the work. It is a ceramic clay vase about 22 inches
high in the shape of a human head. It appeared to the expert
witness Joyce Millar to be in good to excellent condition.
It was created in 1952 by Louis Archambault (1915-2003) a
well-known Canadian sculptor with an international
reputation. A number of his ceramic works are exhibited in public
galleries such as the Musée des beaux-arts de
Montréal, the Musée national des beaux-arts
du Québec, the Robert McLaughlin Gallery and the Art
Gallery of Ontario. It is displayed in a glass case in the
Museum. A photograph is attached as Schedule A.
[8] There can be no question of
Louis Archambault's pre-eminence as a sculptor. In light of
his importance it is worth reproducing a portion of
Ms. Millar's report:
Artist's reputation
34. Louis Archambault was a well-known
Canadian sculptor with an international reputation. Considered
one of the pre-eminent figures of modern sculpture in
Quebec, Archambault exhibited widely, both in Canada and Europe,
and received numerous awards throughout his long career.
35. Born in Montreal in 1915, Archambault
received his Bachelor of Arts from the Université de
Montréal in 1936 and a diploma in ceramics from the
École des Beaux-arts in 1939. In the mid-1940s,
Archambault shared a ceramic studio with Charles Daudelin in
the studio building of the École des beaux-arts, the
Maison Cormier, exploring the clay medium both as a teacher and
as a sculptor. He taught at Montreal's École du Meuble and
the École des Beaux-Arts, the University of
British Columbia, and at the Université du
Québec à Montréal from 1969 to his
retirement.
36. In 1946 his clay sculpture,
L'Appel (1946; MQ), won First Prize in Les Concours
artistique de la province du Québec, and in 1951,
Archambault gained international fame when he exhibited his
Oiseau de fer (Iron Bird) at the International Outdoor
Exhibition of Sculpture at Battersea Park, London, England with
Moore, Rodin, Giacometti, Arp, Calder, Lipchitz, and Pevsner,
among others. His sculpture was featured in the Canadian pavilion
at the XXVII Venice Biennial in 1956, and in 1958, in
collaboration with Montreal industrial designer, Norman Slater,
Archambault created a wall of ceramic tiles mounted in an
aluminum structure for the Universal Exposition in Brussels.
37. Although in 1952, Archambault exhibited
his ceramic work, including some ceramic sculpture, at the Art
Gallery of Toronto (with paintings by Alfred Pellan), by the
mid 1950s, he had turned from ceramics sculpture and decorative
pieces, to wrought iron and bronze sculptures, and later used
aluminum for his large-scale work. At EXPO 67, he was the
only Canadian sculptor among fifty contemporary sculptors to be
included in the International Garden of Sculpture on Ile
Sainte-Hélène, and his large eight-foot high
figures, Personages, dominated the terrace around the
Canadian Pavilion.
38. In the 1960s, Archambault received
several public commissions including L'évitation et
direction for Toronto's Pearson International Airport (1964),
Voyageurs de l'espace for Uplands Airport (Ottawa
International Airport, 1960), "Bird" fountain for Ottawa's City
Hall, and Le Trois anges radieux in the Grand Salles of
Place des Arts, Montreal (1963). In 1968, Louis Archambault
was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. He had major solo
exhibitions at the Musée d'art contemporain,
Montréal in 1972, at the Centre culturel canadien, Paris,
in 1980, and at the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Montréal
in 1993.
39. The Louis Archambault Archive,
consisting of more than twenty sculptures and his private papers
and drawings, was established at the Musée des Beaux-Arts
in Montréal in the early 1990's and his monumental series
of wood sculptures, Mystic Symbols (1980-1993), was
acquired by the Musée in 1996. Archambault had an
extensive exhibition record and his work can be found in
major museums and galleries throughout Canada and in Europe. He
died in January 2003.
40. While Archambault certainly has an
established reputation as a sculptor in the national and
international arena, the fair market value of this ceramic work
can not be determined solely on the basis of this
reputation.
Comparisons
41. There are very few decorative works by
Archambault in public collections. They are listed in Appendix
4.
42. While there are a number of Archambault
sculptures in public collections, it is unrealistic, in my
opinion, to compare his ceramic production, whether functional or
decorative, with his sculpture.
Comparison of this work with other similar work by
the artist
43. Louis Archambault created a body of
ceramic work during the late 1940s and the 1950s and considered
it separate from his sculpture. A detailed description of his
ceramic work is provided in Appendix 5.
44. Prices for the following ceramic works
by Louis Archambault have been established. In 1968 the
Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec (formerly
the Musée de Québec) acquired a Vase, 1949,
faience, 47.5 cm. (# 68.217) for $85.00. No present value has
been determined. However, in 2001, a plate, Plat avec
décor d'oignons, 1951 (porcelain, under glazes and
transparent glaze), 7 x 56 x 27.9 cm. was donated to the
Musée. Two evaluations were given, one for $1800 and the
other for $2500. The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review
Board then determined the value at $2150. (Appendix 6)
45. In 1967, the Robert McLaughlin
Gallery acquired an Archambault ceramic piece, Femme au
Chignon, 1954, as part of the Alexandra Luke donation. It was
appraised in 1970 for $350. (Appendix 7)
Prices of ceramic work by contemporary artists:
46. In looking at the prices of ceramic work
by contemporary artists, such as the following, it is important
to note that a comparison of such pieces with the
Louis Archambault work under consideration can be
misleading.
-
Jordi Bonet - Hotel des Encans - 02/26/01 - sculpture de
devant de cheminee
(110 c 214 c 43 x 84) ceramic - $4000
- Joe Fafard
- Masters - 06/13/01 - Rae 38 x 15 cm - ceramic
sculpture - $8000
- Heffel's -
11/07/96 - cow - 56 x 33 cm - ceramic
sculpture - $7500
- Sotheby's -
11/15/95 - Little Choc - 36 x 14 cm - painted
ceramic sculpture - $6000
-
Vic Cicansky - 11/29/00 - Couch Potatoes, 27 x 11 cm
- ceramic sculpture 1987 -
$900
- 10/24/94 -
VG - untitled, 45 x 49 cm - glazed ceramic -
$3000
- Claude
Vermette 02/21/94 HE - untitled, 39 x 15 cm -
enamelled ceramic - $80
- Robert
Roussil - 10/20/92 HE - Sans titre, 43 x 37 cm -
clay sculpture -
$1100
- Emily Carr
- 05/10/00 - Thunderbird, 6 x 1 cm - painted
ceramic $1200
- 11/06/97 -
Thunderbird, frog, Bear - 3 ceramic sculptures -
$6000
47. For example, the ceramic works of
Joe Fafard are clearly individual sculptures and cannot be
compared to decorative or functional objects. A similar comment
can be made regarding the work of ceramic sculptor
Vic Cicansky.
48. In addition, for Emily Carr, one of
Canada's best known painters, the values realized for her ceramic
pieces are based on her reputation and on the fact that her
ceramics are sculptures, not part of a ceramic production as in
the case of Archambault's ceramics.
Artistic merit and cultural significance of this
work:
49. The work under consideration
Tête (Head), is one of the few ceramic pieces by
Archambault to have been made available to the public. It is
unknown, at this time, as to how many pieces from his ceramic
production (noted as being 300 for one year circa 1957) remain in
private ownership, and if and when they will appear on the open
market.
50. In terms of the artist's significance
vis-à-vis Quebec sculpture and our cultural heritage,
there is no question that Louis Archambault is one of
Quebec's leading sculptors of the mid-twentieth century.
Certainly, his ceramic production played an important role, not
only in his own evolution as a sculptor, but also in the
development of sculpture in Quebec. His influence on his
contemporaries through his teaching is also recognized. However,
in my opinion, his ceramic pieces, whether decorative objects
such as the work in question, or his more functional plates and
platters, can not be considered in the same category as his
sculpture.
Conclusion
51. In establishing the fair market value of
the work by Louis Archambault, I have differentiated between
the artist's sculpture and his decorative ceramic production. I
have also considered the price paid at auction in December 1999,
the particular limited market for such ceramics, the quality of
the work as well as the artist reputation.
52. In my opinion, the fair market value of
the work was, in November 2000, $3,500. In fact, this value
indicates a maximum for the work under these circumstances.
[9] Ms. Millar discussed a number
of other ceramic artists such as Joe Fafard and
Vic Cicansky. The only sales that came near to the $8,000
claimed by the appellant for Head were three sculptures by
Joe Fafard, Rae, Cow, and Little Choc, which
sold for $8,000, $7,500 and $6,000 respectively. It is difficult
to draw any firm conclusion from these. Prices for ceramic
sculptures seem to vary substantially and to value one ceramic
sculptor's work by comparison with a very different work by
another sculptor strikes me as risky and unreliable. The
photographs of the work of these and other sculptors, including
Emily Carr, demonstrate that they all have different styles.
Similarly, attempting to value a ceramic sculpture by an artist
by comparison with a bronze sculpture by the same artist seems to
me to be questionable.
[10] Counsel referred to a number of cases
in this court, including Aikman et al. v. The Queen, 2000
DTC 1874 (affd) 2002 DTC 6874 and Klotz v. The Queen,
2004 T.C.C. 147. The approach taken in those cases is
that a very useful starting point in valuing property is what was
paid for it and, in the absence of reliable market comparables,
it may well be determinative.
[11] Mr. Maréchal relied heavily
on the two valuations provided by the Museum to the Board.
Counsel for the respondent objected to Mr. Maréchal's
introducing these in evidence because he had not complied with
the rule that requires that expert witness reports be served and
filed in court 30 days before they are to be used and that the
witness be available for cross-examination.
[12] The respondent's objection was not
without merit but I exercised my discretion to permit the
appellant to put them in evidence. These reports were of course
before the Board when it made its determination of value.
Moreover, the appellant is self-represented and the amount of
money is not large - the parties are $3,000 apart. The cost to
Mr. Maréchal of calling these witnesses could well
exceed this amount. Self-represented litigants are entitled to
expect that they will be given every opportunity to put their
case in as fully as possible without being impeded with technical
and evidentiary obstacles.
[13] A large part of the appellant's case
was based upon these appraisals and therefore I reproduce them.
They are relatively short:
(Appraisal 1) (Translation)
Montreal, September 29, 2000
Danièle Archambault
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
2189 Bishop
Montreal
Tel.: 285-1600, ext. 167
Subject: Appraisal of a ceramic work by
Louis Archambault
Dear Ms. Archambault:
At your
request, we have appraised the following piece by Louis
Archambault, donated by Mr. Paul Maréchal:
Title: Untitled
(woman's head)
Date: 1952
Medium:
Glazed ceramic
Dimensions: 58 x 32 x 26 cm
Appraisal:
$8,000
Louis Archambault (1915- ) is a sculptor whose career spans
some sixty years. The work appraised can be associated with his
surrealist ceramics, which he created during the Second World
War. The 1950s were marked by large sculptures in bent and cut
metal or bronze, such as the work he created for the Canadian
pavilion in Brussels (1956).
Interest in this artist has been steady, as evidenced by the
exhibition at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (1993) and the
documentary presented last March at the International Festival of
Films on Art. However, the market for works by this artist has
remained small in spite of major commissions (Sunburst, 1959,
owned by Sun Life in Toronto; L'Ange, owned by Place des arts).
Louis Archambault has taught at UQAM.
The only recent transaction we have been able to find is the
National Gallery of Canada's purchase of a small plaster head (24
x 12 x 13 cm), dated 1954, for $1,500 in 1990. Although this
transaction occurred some years ago, we have little choice but to
refer to it since sculptors from that generation are rare - and
often forgotten - with the exception of Roussil and Vaillancourt,
who, though younger, can be associated with that generation of
sculptors. In light of the significant difference in size and the
materials used, we have valued this work by Louis Archambault at
$8,000.
We determined the work's fair market value as defined by the
Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, namely the
highest price, expressed in terms of money, that the property
would bring in an open market in a transaction between a willing
buyer and a willing seller who are knowledgeable and informed and
who are acting independently of each other.
This appraisal was made to the best of my knowledge following
an examination of the work, and the price indicated represents
the fair market value at the date of the appraisal. Moreover, I
have no interest in this transaction between the donor,
Mr. Paul Maréchal, and the Montreal Museum of
Fine Arts. I have not bought or sold this work. My fees consist
of a lump sum and therefore do not depend on the appraisal
amount.
I have been in business for twelve years, have been interested
in the contemporary art market for twenty years as a collector,
and have been a member of the Association des galeries d'art
contemporain (AGAC) since I began my business.
(letter signed by)
Eric Devlin
---------------
Montreal, December 29, 2000
Mr. Marc Bédard
Canadian Cultural Property
Export Review Board
15 Eddy Street, 3rd floor
Hull, K1A 0M5
Fax: 819-997-7757
Subject: Further information regarding the donation by Paul
Maréchal of a sculpture by Louis Archambault
Dear Sir:
The Board has asked the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts to
provide additional arguments to support my appraisal of a work by
Louis Archambault donated by
Mr. Paul Maréchal.
In this regard, I have enclosed a letter from
Mr. Simon Blais, as well as two recent transaction
records.
Sincerely,
(letter signed by)
Eric Devlin
(Appraisal 2) (Translation)
Ms. Danielle
Archambault
Montreal, November 1, 2000
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
1800 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3G 2T9
Re.: Paul Maréchal file, appraisal of a ceramic work
by Louis Archambault at $8,000
Dear Ms. Archambault:
At your request, I would like to add some additional
information regarding the appraisal of a sculpture by the artist
Louis Archambault, donated to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts by
Mr. Maréchal.
To substantiate the appraisal, and because this artist has
sold very few works over his career, I will have to use as
comparables sales of works by other artists with comparable
careers.
For example, in March 1997, we sold Famille, a bronze
by Charles Daudelin, 1949, of which 6 copies were produced
(34 x 25 x 4 cm), for $6,000; in January 1998, we sold a burnt
wood by Armand Vaillancourt, 1963, for $16,500; in 1995, the
Galerie d'Arts Contemporains sold Sans titre by
Jordi Bonet, a unique aluminum sculpture measuring 16 x
12 x 3 inches for $12,000; Robert Roussil's, Mère
et enfant, sculpted wood, 1951, approximately 100 cm high,
was acquired in 1989 by the Musée du Québec for
$28,000; in June 2000, we sold Migrants VI, 1998, a bronze
by René Derouin, of which 8 were produced, measuring
15 x 18 x 11 cm, for $5,000; and
finally, in June 2000, we sold Couple en
déséquilibre, 2000, a bronze by
Roseline Granet, of which 8 were produced, measuring 50 x 25
x 20 cm, for $7,500.
What this shows is that sculptures by well-known artists from
Quebec and elsewhere, from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even
very recent ones, command prices ranging from $5,000 for the
smallest and most recent to $16,500 and even $28,000 for the
earliest. Riopelle bronzes from the 1970s generally fetch $35,000
to $50,000. This beautiful ceramic by Louis Archambault is quite
large (58 cm tall) and is part of this major Quebec artist's most
significant production in the early 1950s. Because there remains
very few examples of this production, and because this piece is
particularly beautiful and unusual, I believe that its original
appraisal at $8,000 is more than conservative given the prices
fetched by sculptures by artists of equivalent reputation.
Signed in Montreal by Simon Blais on November 1, 2000.
[14] It would have been of much more
assistance to me (and, I should think, to the appellant) if
Mr. Devlin and Mr. Blais had testified. As it is I have
only the reports to look to for substantiation of the conclusion
that the sculpture was worth $8,000.
[15] Valuing a work of art is difficult. It
is not like valuing a piece of commercial property, or a house,
or shares in a corporation. Well-defined criteria for such
valuations are more readily available. In valuing a work of art
there are many variables and subjective elements that can result
in differences in estimates of value that may vary within a range
of indeterminate magnitude.
[16] The Crown's expert, Ms. Millar,
whose expertise, qualifications and experience were impressive,
set out the following factors that should be taken into account
in valuing a work of art:
13. In establishing a value for a work of
art, a number of components must be taken into consideration. In
general these include:
- artist's
education, exhibition record and reputation,
- sales
records (primary market),
- auction
records (secondary market),
- specific
market demand,
- provenance
of the work and its earlier sale history,
- the medium,
size, production date, quality and subject matter of the
work,
- comparable
prices with similar work by the same artist,
- comparable
prices with similar work by other artists with similar
experience
- comparable
prices with work done under similar circumstances
It will be obvious from reading this list that there is
considerable flexibility in the weight that valuators can put on
each of these factors.
[17] Ms. Millar's expert report
is a thorough and careful analysis of the problem of determining
for Canadian tax purposes the value of works of art that are
donated to art galleries. Although all of her observations
probably merit reproduction I shall set out one paragraph in
particular with which I am in complete agreement.
19. Therefore, in my opinion, the best
evidence of true "fair market value" is the price the donor paid
for the work in conjunction with a certain appreciation
factor depending on the fluctuation of the open market. This
removes the problem of "artificially inflated evaluations" that
are in excess of the price at which the work was actually bought.
The only way an elevated price can be justified following a
"bargain purchase" is if at the same time of the donation, a
similar work is sold by an established gallery/dealer (or other
appropriate market including auction) at the established higher
price and reliable invoices made available.
[18] The problem here is that despite
Mr. Archambault's stellar reputation we have no recent sales
of similar ceramic sculpture done by him that would justify the
$8,000 figure contended for by the appellant. Indeed, considering
how prolific he was in different media, we have relatively few
comparable sales by him in any media and in particular of ceramic
sculpture. Indeed in recent years, according to Ms. Millar,
only two ceramic pieces by Louis Archambault have come up
for auction, Head (the sculpture in question here) and
Yellow Bird, a glazed ceramic platter which sold in 2000
at Ritchies in Toronto for $575.
[19] There are several considerations raised
by Ms. Millar that should be mentioned. The first is the
distinction that she draws between a decorative craft piece and a
sculptural piece. She says Head is in the former category
and Joe Fafard's and Vic Cicansky's works are in the
latter. I find the distinction somewhat subtle and I am not
convinced that it is a meaningful one in the context of the
business of valuing art. The characterization of one piece of art
as "sculpture" and another as "decorative craft" is both
difficult and subjective. It is a judgment call on which experts
are unlikely to agree. The somewhat nebulous nature of the
distinction makes it an unreliable basis upon which to determine
value.
[20] The second consideration has to do with
the artist's reputation. Louis Archambault's reputation was
outstanding, but this does not appear to have had a significant
influence on the price paid for his works. An artist's reputation
may in some circumstances be reflected in the price paid for that
artist's work - for example Van Gogh or Picasso - but this is not
necessarily so in all cases. It would in my view be necessary for
anyone seeking to attribute an enhanced value to a work of art to
demonstrate clearly how the artist's reputation has enhanced the
fmv of his or her work.
[21] Finally, Ms. Millar states that
the artistic merit of a piece of art is a factor in determining
value. I neither accept nor reject this proposition. I say merely
that it requires further examination and I do not base my
decision on it. Defining and recognizing artistic merit is almost
as difficult as defining art itself. No doubt art experts and
artists are in a better position than a court would be to
determine whether a work of art has artistic merit. Nonetheless,
it is an elusive and indefinable concept and it is unquestionably
highly subjective. I would be reluctant to base any determination
of value upon the view of an art expert - however distinguished -
that a work of art had artistic merit.
[22] On the question therefore of artistic
merit, I accept Ms. Millar's view (and obviously, the
Board's and Mr. Maréchal's) that Head has
artistic merit. I accept as well that the determination of
artistic merit is not necessarily in all cases a purely
subjective or relativistic one. Obviously, there are objective
criteria that can be applied. Rembrandt's works have by all
objective standards artistic and aesthetic merit. No doubt the
fact that objectively his works have artistic merit as well as
the fact they are by Rembrandt justifies, at least in part, the
high prices. However, we are not trying to value a Rembrandt
here. I am merely indicating that caution should be used in
treating the subjective judgement on the presence or absence of
artistic merit as a factor in determining the fmv of a work of
art.
[23] Ms. Millar starts from the price
paid by the appellant for the sculpture in 1999 (which is either
$1,300 or $1,719 depending upon whether one adds the taxes and
commission) and adds what she describes as a "fluctuation factor
of the open market" to arrive at a value of $3,500. Such an
adjustment may be seen as arbitrary and I daresay it is in some
measure. One cannot entirely escape an element of arbitrariness
in valuing artistic works. Nonetheless, what one person may call
arbitrariness, someone else may call informed discretion and
someone else may call judgement based on experience. It depends
on who is making the call.
[24] Ms. Millar, an experienced art
expert, has taken the price paid in 1999 and has arrived at a
value that is approximately double that a year later. The Board
has trebled or quadrupled it and the appraisers Devlin and Blais
have quintupled or sextupled the original cost depending upon
what figure one starts with. I do not think that the reports of
Devlin and Blais contain within themselves the type of evidence
that would justify the conclusion that this work of art has
appreciated in value by 500 percent. It may be that so dramatic
an increase is theoretically possible in extraordinary
circumstances but in the real world it seems highly improbable
and it has not been established here.
[25] In the result it has not been shown
that the value of the sculpture is greater than the figure of
$5,000 determined by the Board. The appeal is therefore
dismissed.
[26] I have decided to award no costs
against the appellant even though the case was heard under the
General Procedure. I am exercising my discretion in this way for
several reasons. Certainly it is no reflection on the conduct of
counsel for the respondent. Maître Jacquier presented
the respondent's case with her usual skill, thoroughness and
fairness. My reason is that the money involved is relatively
small but the case raised important questions of principle that
went beyond the monetary amounts in issue.
Mr. Maréchal is to be commended for bringing the
matter before the court. He presented his case with great
skill.
Moreover, there is no provision in the Tax Court of Canada
Act for electing the Informal Procedure in appeals from
determinations of value by the Board under the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act. Therefore, the appellant was
required to proceed under the General Procedure notwithstanding
the small amount involved.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of August
2004.
Bowman, A.C.J.
Email this Content