Subsection 46(3) - Properties ordinarily disposed of as a set
See Also
Plamondon v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1137 [at 746], 2011 TCC 47
Hogan J. found at para. 22 that, even if a collection of insects were the taxpayers' personal use property, they did not form an "unbreakable set," and therefore s. 46(3) did not apply to consolidate them into a single personal-use property. He found instead that each insect was a separate property. The taxpayers therefore had a deemed adjusted cost base of $1000 per insect as per s. 46(1)(a), and did not realize a capital gain when they donated the collection to to Laval University.
Administrative Policy
12 June 2013 STEP Roundtable Q. , 2013-0481001C6
The CRA considers that a set for these purposes is a number of properties belonging together and relating to each other. For example, in the case of the hobby of philately, in the past, the CRA considered that a set is a number of stamps which were produced and issued by one country simultaneously or over a short period of time. The fact that the value of a number of properties, if sold together, exceeds the aggregate of their values, if sold individually, may indicate the existence of a set. However, this is not in itself a decisive factor.
CRA indicated that paintings might be a set if they "were painted as a set and would ordinarily be disposed of as a set," such as a set of portraits of former premiers or of members of a family tree, but that being painted by the same artist does not itself indicate that there is a set.