http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/65449/index.do 
Roger Dubois Inc. v. The Queen (December 20, 2013, – 2013 TCC 409) is a fascinating case in which the taxpayer attempted to claim capital cost allowance on a number of very valuable, very old musical instruments:
[1] This appeal regards:
(a) a violin made by Joseph Guarnerius in 1705,
(b) a bow made by François Xavier Tourte in 1820,
(c) a violin made by Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume in 1840,
(d) a violin made by Giovanni Francesco Pressenda in 1844, and
(e) a Sartory bow the date of fabrication of which is unknown.
[2] The appellant purchased these musical instruments for a total of more than $1,900,000.
[3] The issue is whether the appellant can claim the capital cost allowance for income tax purposes despite paragraph 1102(1)(e) of the Income Tax Regulations (Regulations), under which certain property is not depreciable. This paragraph provides, in part:
(e) that was…
(iv) antique furniture, or any other antique object, produced more than 100 years before the date it was acquired, the cost of which to the taxpayer was not less that $1,000,
…
The taxpayer, through a subsidiary, used the instruments for promotional purposes [para. 5]:
4. The Company operates in the real estate field; in particular, it manages buildings in order to lease them to its subsidiaries.
5. The Company also owns very valuable musical instruments, namely violins and bows. The violins have the Canimex logo.
6. The violins and bows owned by the Company are made available to talented musicians though its subsidiary Canimex.
7. During the years in question, the two musicians who used the instruments, Marc-André Gauthier and Alexandre Da Costa, worked in Europe and North America.
8. During the years in question, the Company and Canimex entered into a contract under which the subsidiary agreed to pay the appellant around $65,000 for the right to use the musical instruments for promotional purposes.
9. During the years in question, neither of the musicians signed a contract with the Company or its subsidiary, nor did they make any payment for the loan or rental of the musical instruments.
In essence the taxpayer’s argument was that these instruments were not antiques since they were not mere decorative objects but working musical instruments. The court rejected this line of argument:
[27] There are two problems with this approach. The first is that the words “
tout autre objet d’époque” and “any other antique object” (emphasis added) have a very broad scope, and do not suggest any limits. Second, in the context of section 1102 of the Regulations, or more generally in the Act and the Regulations, nothing suggests that a distinction must be made between old furniture that is simply displayed and old furniture that is used every day by its owner, for example, a beautiful antique desk used by its owner. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that a distinction must be made between an antique car that is simply displayed and an antique car that is used in movie productions.
[28] It is useful to recall that the entire depreciation mechanism in the Act contains a number of somewhat arbitrary rules that are to simplify the capital cost allowance, for example, for various classes of properties with a set depreciation rate. Having to distinguish between an old desk that is being used and an old desk that is displayed seems to defeat this simplification effort.
[Footnotes omitted]
The court did however allow the appeal with respect to the Sartory bow (having a cost of roughly $38,000 – Note 1 to Reasons):
[7] Considering that the respondent assumed that the fabrication date was unknown and did not assume that the bow was made more than 100 years before it was purchased, the burden is on the Minister to show that the musical instrument is more than 100 years old.
[8] Paragraph 16 of the statement of facts indicates that the date of fabrication of the Sartory bow is unknown.
[9] Considering paragraph 16 of the statement of facts, I do not see how I can conclude that the Minister has shown that the bow was made 100 years before it was purchased.
[10] As a result, the Sartory bow is depreciable regardless of the outcome for the four other musical instruments.