A-33-78
Jacques Beique (Plaintiff) (Appellant)
v.
The Queen (Defendant) (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Ryan JJ. and Lalande
D.J.—Montreal, September 29, 1980.
Income tax — Tax liability — Trial Judge correct in
determining that appellant's matrimonial regime governing the
fiscal year in question was not that of community of property
and that the agreement amending it from separation of prop
erty to community of property did not affect the Crown with
respect to that year — Income from property owned by appel
lant's wife deemed to be that of appellant pursuant to s. 21(1)
of the Income Tax Act (Lalande D.J. dissenting in part) —
Quebec Civil Code, art. 1266b — Income Tax Act, R.S.C.
1952, c. 148, s. 21(1) as amended by S.C. 1955, c. 54, s. 3.
INCOME tax appeal.
COUNSEL:
J. Beique for himself.
D. Thibodeau and R. Roy for respondent
(defendant).
SOLICITORS:
J. Beique, Montreal, for himself.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent (defendant).
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: It is unnecessary for the purposes of
this appeal to decide whether the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Sura v. M.N.R.
[1962] S.C.R. 65 must still be followed despite the
changes that have taken place in Quebec law since
1960. We are all of the opinion that the Trial
Judge' correctly held that appellant was not mar
ried under the regime of community of property in
1971; it appears to this Court that, at least with
regard to the Crown, which is a third party, the
agreement amending the matrimonial regime of
appellant and his wife had no effect prior to
registration of the notice required by article 1266b
of the Civil Code.
' [1978] 2 F.C. 463.
The question remains whether, in assessing
appellant, the Minister of National Revenue did
not include in his income an amount of $770 which
was, in fact, income of his wife. In this regard, the
evidence disclosed that the income of $770 derived
from property owned by appellant's wife. How
ever, it further showed, in my view, that this
income derived from property which the wife
bought with money given to her by her husband.
In these circumstances the income from this prop
erty, though it is in fact that of the wife, is deemed
to be that of appellant pursuant to section 21(1) of
the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 as
amended by S.C. 1955, c. 54, s. 3.
For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal
with costs.
* * *
RYAN J. concurred.
* * *
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
LALANDE D.J. (dissenting in part): I concur
with Pratte J. except as to the last point.
I conclude from the evidence that the $500
given by Mr. Beique to his wife in 1940, to buy a
piece of land adjoining the family home, must be
considered, pursuant to section 21(1) of the
Income Tax Act, with the contribution of $1,000
which Mrs. Beique had made the previous year,
the year they were married, to buy for her husband
the piece of land on which this house was built.
In my view, the investment income of the wife
derived from her own funds and appellant's notice
of assessment should be amended to take this into
account.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.