• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Art law image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet The Contentious World of Art Appraisal: Michelangelo, Van der Schardt and the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board*
Back

The Contentious World of Art Appraisal: Michelangelo, Van der Schardt and the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board*

March 16, 2013

logo

The Canadian government offers a tax incentive to encourage the donation of art from private collections to public institutions, a practice that is similarly followed in the United Kingdom and the United States. On one hand, the public receives access to artwork that they might otherwise never see, and on the other hand the individuals or corporations receive a tax break for donating the works. The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, in its role as an independent administrative tribunal among other functions, upholds a mandate to certify the cultural property for income tax purposes. The Board determines the fair market value of art to be donated by either the sales comparison approach or the cost approach, both of which are outlined on the Board’s website.

The purpose of the tax certification process is to “encourage[ ] the transfer of cultural property from private hands to the public domain.” In order to qualify for the tax certification, the Board must determine whether the work is of  “outstanding significance, due to its close association with Canadian history, its close association with national life, its aesthetic qualities, its value in the study of the arts, or its value in the study of the sciences; and the object is of such national importance that its loss to Canada would significantly diminish the national heritage.”
The incentivesgranted to successful applicants include “exemption from capital gains tax on the certified cultural property; and non-refundable tax credits for the full fair market values of the certified cultural property.”
How is cultural property actually appraised? The story below raises issues of provenance, the qualification of experts and the contentious nature of the appraisal of art.

* * *
On January 26, 2013, David Baines of the Vancouver Sunreported that eighteen sculptures (the “Collection”) donated to the Museum of Vancouver – terracotta studies of body parts – which had previously been attributed to Michelangelo (1475-1564) and Benvenuto Cellini (1500-1571) by art historians, were in actuality made by Dutch sculptor Johann Gregor Van der Schardt (1530-1591) in the late sixteenth or seventeenth century. The sculptures had been put up for auction by the Museum of Vancouver at Sotheby’s in January, Lot 354, and were featured as a part of Old Masters Week.
Measuring between 7.7 and 21 centimeters, Sotheby’s catalogue described the sculptures as “studies after anatomical elements seen in famous monuments sculpted by Michelangelo Buonarotti. The practice of making copies … was central to the education and stylistic development of artists of the Renaissance; these artists also learned by copying their immediate predecessors and contemporaries, particularly the works of great masters.”
Sotheby’s website reveals that they were most likely acquired by Paul von Praun (an important art collector) in the late 1500s directly from the estate of Van der Schardt. After changing several hands they were then sold to J. Wolff from Montreal by Christie’s London in 1938. Wolff’s twin sons, Paul and Peter LeBrooy, inherited the terracotta sculptures in the 1950s, nine pieces each.
As CBC News reports, while in possession of the LeBrooy brothers, the sculptures remained virtually unstudied for years, until some art historians began suggesting that they might be the works of Michelangelo himself. Sometime after, the brothers contacted experts in hopes of having the sculptures attributed to Michelangelo. Later and for years, the works were promoted and toured internationally as Michelangelo’s studies. Paul LeBrooy even authored a book on the topic titled Michelangelo Models: Formerly in the Paul von Praun Collection (1972).
The ensuing controversy making headlines in Canada is centered on the appraised value of the collection. That is, the donation of the sculptures by Corporate House (a financial group) to the Museum of Vancouver, once valued at about $31 million, had also resulted in the issuance of $31 million in tax receipts for the company by the Review Board. It was clearly a shock when Sotheby’s appraised the works at a fraction of that amount, valuing nine sculptures from the Collection at $200,000-300,000. 
Apparently, as revealed in a radio interview with CBC reporter Jason Proctor, the sculptures had endured a riveting history. The pieces had been put up for sale numerous times since the 1960s, receiving offers ranging from several to about $40 million; they were never sold. As per Proctor, the brothers became estranged over the sculptures and divided the collection into two. Corporate House then offered $18 million for Paul’s nine sculptures on the condition that they were attributable to Michelangelo and that they could be appraised for that value in 1996. However, the attribution to Michelangelo could not be made conclusively, and consequently Corporate House acquired Paul’s set of sculptures in 1998 for an undisclosed amount, on the basis that the sculptures were important, unattributed works of the Renaissance era. Shortly following Peter’s death in 2003, Corporate House purchased the remainder of the nine sculptures, whereupon in 2006 they donated the entire collection to the Museum of Vancouver in return for a tax break.
According to Proctor, when Corporate House approached the Review Board regarding the donation to the Museum of Vancouver, they had contacted every expert eligible to verify the attribution to Michelangelo, but learned that it was not “tenable.” Interestingly, Proctor managed to track down two scholars who had been hired by Corporate House, neither of whom had attributed the works to Michelangelo. One of the scholars even concluded that the sculptures were most likely the works of Van der Shardt but he was specifically asked to forgo writing a report about it.
Proctor reveals that the Review Board rejected the initial valuation made by Corporate House for $55 million and later accepted a second valuation based on independent appraisals, in the total fair market value (as defined by the Board) of $31 million for all eighteen figures. Although the appraisals are not made public, the Vancouver Sun reports that Nancy Noble (CEO, Museum of Vancouver) suspects that the sculptures may have been attributed to Michelangelo given the “enormous valuations.”
Several years after the transfer, in 2012, when the Museum of Vancouver decided that the statues were not a part of their collection mandate and decided to flip them on the market, they approached Sotheby’s. The auction house issued a valuation of $200,000-$300,000 for a portion of the collection, and attributed the studies to Van der Shardt.
The question now is: what happens when tax certificates are issued by the Review Board based on appraisals that are disproportionate to subsequent ‘corrected’ valuations when new information is brought to light? Luckily for Canadians, and less so for Corporate House, based on paragraph 32(5)(b) of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Review Board has the power to “redetermine” the fair market value “at any time,” which would then prompt the Canadian Revenue Agency to re-evaluate tax returns from Corporate House, clearly anticipating situations like this one. 
The tax certification application process is an intensiveone. However, as Proctor mused in his interview, if he was able to track down the experts that Corporate House used – one of whom had attributed the works to Van der Schardt earlier on – then should the Review Board have done the same? Currently, the Review Board’s policy on monetary appraisal is that “[r]ecipient institutions/public authorities are responsible for selecting reliable evaluators for donations and should be prepared to stand by the work of the appraisers they have engaged,” further, the onus for providing certificates of authenticity also rests with the applicant. 
Sotheby’s Lot 354 from the January sale in New York remains unsold.

*Sources: Department of Canadian Heritage; “Important Old Master Painting and Sculptures: Lot 354” Sotheby’s; “Blockbuster Donation of ‘Michelangelo’ Sculptures Turns into a Multi-Million-Dollar Bust” The Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2013; “‘Michelangelo Models’ Cost Canada Millions in Tax Credits” CBC News, February 20, 2013; “Why Did ‘Michelangelo Models’ Cost Canadians Millions of Dollars in Tax Credits?” CBC News The Current, February 19, 2013; Michelangelo www.michelangelo.com; The J. Paul Getty Museum www.getty.edu/museum; The Museum of Vancouver www.museumofvancouver.ca; Amazon www.amazon.ca.

*The author wishes to thank Jason Proctor and the Department of Canadian Heritage for their assistance in providing additional information, and Dr. Laura Petican for her assistance in editing and feedback on the article.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Twitter it or Not: Agence France Presse v. Morel Held in Favor of Photographer
Next Will the AAMD’s Newly Updated Guidelines Lead to Substantial Change in Museum Collecting Practices?

Related Art Law Articles

word image 78618 1
Art law

Collaboration in Cultural Heritage: Greater Questions of Digital Reconstructions

May 24, 2026
CfAL Marion Davies 1
Art law

Who Owns Hollywood’s Past? 

May 20, 2026
Center for Art Law MET Opera Chagall
Art law

Creative Financing Ideas: A Potential Sale of the Met Opera’s Chagalls

May 11, 2026
What the Heck is Copyright (2)

What is Copy, Right?

2026 Annual Conference

Let’s explore Visual Art, AI, and the Law in the 21st Century together.

 

Reserve Your Ticket TODAY
Guidelines AI and Art Authentication

AI and Art Authentication

Explore the Guidelines for AI and Art Authentication for the responsible, ethical, and transparent use of artificial intelligence.

Download here
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

📍June 13, 11:30 - 13:00 | Auditorium Willy G.S. Hi 📍June 13, 11:30 - 13:00 | Auditorium Willy G.S. Hirzel, Landesmuseum Zurich 

Free & open to the public

This June, as part of the official program of @zurichartweekend, we are bringing together some of the sharpest minds in the international art world for a candid conversation on what’s reshaping collecting today.

▪️Art Markets and the World in Transition: Frameworks Shaping Global Collecting

Geopolitics. Tariffs. AML regulation. Taxes. The rules of the art market are changing as fast as your news feed, and this panel is where experts unpack what that means for collectors, gallerists, and art lovers.

Speakers: 

Will Korner (TEFAF) · Alana Kushnir (Aurelian Lawyers & Advisers) · Pascal Robert (Pascal Robert Gallery) · Stefan Puttaert (Nicola Erni Collection) · Irina Tarsis, Esq. (Center for Art Law, moderator)

The event sponsors to be announced soon! 

Link in bio to save your spot 🔗

#ZurichArtWeekend #ArtLaw #ArtMarket #Collecting #ZAW2026 LandesmuseumZürich CenterForArtLaw ArtAndLaw CrossBorderCollecting
Join the Center for Art Law for a conversation wit Join the Center for Art Law for a conversation with Dr. Rubina Raja, Professor of Classical Archaeology and Art at Aarhus University, as she presents contemporary, collaborative approaches to combating the illicit trade in antiquities, with a particular focus on Palmyra (Tadmor), Syria.

Drawing on the historical relationship between collecting and looting, the discussion will highlight the Palmyrene Portrait Project, a corpus of over 4,000 funerary portraits from Palmyra compiled by Dr. Raja and her team since 2012. The project serves as a critical record of material that, in many cases, remained in situ prior to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. 

Before its inception, this body of material had not been treated as a unified corpus, nor systematically digitized. Today, the project stands as both the largest corpus of individual Roman period portraits from a single urban context and an essential scholarly and practical tool for identifying objects from Palmyra as they emerge on the art market. 

🎟️ Get tickets now using the link in bio!

#centerforartlaw #arlaw #artlawyer #legalresearch #culturalheritage #artcrime #antiquities
On October 6, 2025, the Flemish Government announc On October 6, 2025, the Flemish Government announced plans to transform the Museum of Contemporary Art Antwerp (M HKA) into an art center — a change that would make the institution lose its legal museum status and transfer its collection to the Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst in Ghent. Losing this status will have huge legal, financial, and cultural repercussions for the M HKA. 

This decision raised strong reactions from the art world, denouncing the false administrative logic behind this reorganization, which, according to the Flemish Minister of Culture, aims to strengthen collaboration and coherence within the cultural landscape. How does this transfer truly impact the Belgian artistic landscape — and does it really contribute to any coherence, or does it instead destroy the long-term curation and expertise that the institution has built in Antwerp?

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the full article by Alexandra Kharchenko. 

https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/flemish-governments-plan-to-dismantle-m-hkas-collection-in-the-name-of-centralization-of-art/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #artlawyer #legalresearch #artcuration #MHKA #artcuration
Thank you to all of our sponsors for all of their Thank you to all of our sponsors for all of their help in executing our 2026 Art Law Conference!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #2026annualconference #2026 #auction #nonprofit
This is the final day to bid in our Annual Art Law This is the final day to bid in our Annual Art Law Conference 2026 Silent Auction to support the Center's mission to advance artists’ rights and provide accessible legal resources to the artistic community. All proceeds go directly toward the Center’s programs, including our Summer Internship and ongoing educational initiatives. 

Don't miss out on the amazing pieces  and experiences up for grabs!

 Biding will end May 27 at 5:30pm ET.

1st: Floragen 2.0.1 by Colleen Hoffenbacker 
2nd: Jumping Frog by Vija Doks 
3rd: Untiled no.11( Amy Hollywood) by Andre Pace 

🖼️ Follow the link in our bio to begin bidding! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #2026annualconference #2026 #auction #nonprofit
In 1935 Ernst Magnus was forced to sell "The Virgi In 1935 Ernst Magnus was forced to sell "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne" and other works in order to escape the Nazi regime. In 1941 the painting was sold to Hermann Göring and was then recovered by the Allies at the close of World War II. By the 1960s the painting was held by the Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen.

Originally restitution was rejected, but under expanded guidelines the Museum chose to restitute the piece  to Ernst Magnus' heirs. It is now set to be Auction by Sotheby's on June 2, 2026. The starting bid is listed at $28k and the estimated price between $40-60k.

🔗 Check out more about this work and it's provenance using the links in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artlawyer #lawyer #legalresearch #nazilootedart #artcrime #wwii #restitution
Make sure to check out our Annual Art Law Conferen Make sure to check out our Annual Art Law Conference 2026 Silent Auction to support the Center's mission to advance artists’ rights and provide accessible legal resources to the artistic community. All proceeds go directly toward the Center’s programs, including our Summer Internship and ongoing educational initiatives. 

 Biding will end on May 27 at 5:30pm ET.

🗽 Swipe to preview a selection of the consultations & experiences that will be available for purchase through the auction and follow the link in our bio to begin bidding! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #2026annualconference #2026 #auction #nonprofit
Historical examples of famous fakes and forgeries Historical examples of famous fakes and forgeries explain how technical skill is not the only factor that allow forgeries to flourish in the art market. Historical context — as illustrated by World War II-era cases — or, in the modern world, the lack of due diligence and risk assessment and failures of authentication, show how a combination of factors allows forgeries to flourish in particular contexts. 

From a legal perspective, fraud and forgeries are not the only issues complicating the operation of the art market. They are further amplified by related problems such as money laundering, fraud schemes, and theft. In this context, due diligence and authentication become even more critical considerations for buyers and sellers.

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Lauren Stein to get a deeper understanding of the vulnerabilities of the art market!

https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/when-imitation-is-not-flattery-art-fakes-forgeries-and-the-market-they-fool/ 

 #centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #artlawyer #legalresearch #forgery #fraud #arttransparency
Don't miss out on our Annual Art Law Conference 20 Don't miss out on our Annual Art Law Conference 2026 silent auction to support the Center's mission to advance artists’ rights and provide accessible legal resources to the artistic community. All proceeds go directly toward the Center’s programs, including our Summer Internship and ongoing educational initiatives. 

 Biding will end on May 27 at 5:30pm ET.

📚 Swipe to preview a selection of the books that will be available for purchase through the auction and follow the link in our bio to begin bidding! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #2026annualconference #2026 #auction #nonprofit
Day 4 of ☀️school: from Brooklyn to Manhattan (and Day 4 of ☀️school: from Brooklyn to Manhattan (and back)
@brooklynmuseum @pacegallery
Running a nonprofit, art law or not, only looks gl Running a nonprofit, art law or not, only looks glamorous. Before our founder completes her metamorphosis from dewy-faced starlet to aging legend, consider supporting the Center by registering for our silent auction. Marion Davies photographs, artworks, books, and more await their next owners. 

Follow the link in our bio to begin bidding!
In last night's evening sale, Christie's successfu In last night's evening sale, Christie's successfully auction off Picasso's L'Atelier for $6.9 million. The painting was previously in art dealer Douglas Cooper's collection prior to it being stolen in 1974. It was later  found in Japan

The sale occurred as part of a settlement agreement reached between the current holder and the estate of Cooper's heir. Full title passed to the successful bider. 

🔗 Check out more information on the sale using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #artlawyer #lawyer #artcrime #picasso
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law