Pratte, J:—It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to decide whether the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in F Sura v MNR, [1962] CTC 1; 62 DTC 1005, 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 married 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 Art 1266b of the Civil Code.
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. However, 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 property, though it is in fact that of the wife, is deemed to be that of the appellant pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Income Tax Act.
For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Lalande, DJ:—I concur with Pratte, J except as to the last point.
I conclude from the evidence that the $500 given by Mr Beïque to his wife in 1940, to buy a piece of land adjoining the family home, must be considered, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Income Tax Act, with the contribution of $1,000 which Mrs Be'I'que 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.