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.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
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.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of January 2002.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
98-1962(IT)G
BETWEEN:
NICOLE WELLS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Guy Wells
(98-1960(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 assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years is dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of October 2001.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of January 2002.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]