Date: 20121219
Docket: A-431-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 332
CORAM: PELLETIER
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
GORDON PRICE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MAINVILLE J.A.
Context and background
[1]
This
concerns an appeal from the judgment of McArthur J. of the Tax Court of Canada
(the “Judge”) dated October 12, 2011, rendered for the reasons cited as 2011
TCC 449 (the “Reasons”).
[2]
Some
Air Canada pilots have elected to reside outside of Canada and have
consequently sought to be taxed as non-residents for the income they receive
from Air Canada. Prior to the Sutcliffe decision referred to below, the
Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) recognized that the income earned
by a non-resident pilot in relation to a flight that departed from or
arrived at a place outside Canada was income earned outside Canada, but that
any income earned in relation to a flight that departed from and arrived
in Canada was income earned in Canada.
[3]
This
approach was challenged by certain Air Canada pilots through a test case that
eventually lead to the decision of the Tax Court of Canada in Sutcliffe v.
The Queen, 2005 TCC 812; 2006 D.T.C. 2076; [2006] 2 C.T.C. 2267 (“Sutcliffe”).
That decision set out the principle that non-resident pilots are deemed to be
working outside of Canada for those portions of the flights they pilot which
are outside of Canadian airspace. After reviewing the factual situation, and
considering the diverse employment duties of Air Canada pilots, their complex
methods of remuneration, and their numerous employment benefits, Woods J. of
the Tax Court of Canada approved in Sutcliffe the following rules for
apportioning the remuneration of non-resident Air Canada pilots:
(a) the income earned in relation to the portion of
any flight (domestic or international) flown in Canadian airspace is income
earned in Canada;
(b) the income earned in relation to the portion of
any flight (domestic or international) flown outside Canadian airspace is
income earned outside of Canada;
(c) the income which is related to specifically paid
duties not related to any flight is deemed income earned in Canada or outside
Canada depending on where the duties are actually performed, and
(d) the remuneration not related to specific duties
(such as vacation pay, sick pay, etc.) is prorated to the income earned in
Canada and outside Canada as determined above, and is allocated accordingly.
[4]
The
appellant was a non-resident of Canada and a former Air Canada pilot who principally flew international routes. Prior to Sutcliffe, all
income related to an international flight was deemed by the Minister to be
earned outside of Canada. Under the Sutcliffe principles however, the
income related to the time spent on an international flight in Canadian
airspace is now deemed income earned in Canada. The appellant does not
challenge this aspect of the Sutcliffe decision, even though it does not
favour his particular situation.
[5]
The
appellant, however, does challenge the allocation principles set out in Sutcliffe.
Under the Sutcliffe principles, the allocation between income earned in Canada and outside Canada is largely based on the flying time of the pilots inside and outside
Canadian airspace. The appellant rather proposes that the allocation of his
income be based not only on the flying time, but also include the off-flying
hours, such as layover time.
[6]
Thus,
in the appellant’s view, the allocation between income earned in Canada and income earned outside of Canada should be calculated from the moment a pilot’s duties
begin with the departure of the flight to which he is assigned until the time
the pilot’s duties end with a return to the home base or its equivalent. The
proportion between the time spent in Canada and the time spent elsewhere would
then be used to allocate the income earned by a pilot for that duty schedule.
Since, in the case of the appellant, much of his time was spent on layovers in
foreign countries, his proposed allocation method would have the effect of
greatly increasing the proportion of his income earned outside of Canada when compared to the allocation method approved in Sutcliffe.
[7]
As
a secondary and unrelated issue, the appellant also asserts that as a
non-resident, the amounts he received in 1999 as disability payments under Air Canada’s disability income insurance plan were not subject to any Canadian tax in light of
the principles set out by the Tax Court of Canada in Dorothy Werner Blauer
v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 706; 2008 D.T.C. 2409; [2008] 4 C.T.C. 2107 (“Blauer”).
The reasons of the Tax
Court of Canada
[8]
Many
technical issues were submitted to the Judge, who reached conclusions on those
issues and rendered judgment accordingly. During the course of these appeal
proceedings, the parties agreed to a partial consent to judgment on all these
technical issues, and this consent was filed with our Court on December 12,
2012. Consequently, only those aspects of the Judge’s Reasons dealing with the
two principal issues raised in this appeal need be reviewed, namely the method
for allocating income earned as a non-resident Air Canada pilot, and the
taxation of the payments received under Air Canada’s disability income
insurance plan.
[9]
The
Judge found that in order to successfully challenge the allocation method set
out in Sutcliffe and used by the Minister, the appellant had to
establish that his proposed method of allocation was more reasonable: Reasons
at para. 26. Since the allocation method approved in Sutcliffe was based
on the terms of the collective agreement reached between Air Canada and its
pilots’ association, and since that collective agreement provides that the
pilots are, for the most part, paid in accordance with complex formulas tied to
the minutes they are flying aircrafts, the Judge found that “the most
reasonable method is the one which reflects the pay structure contained in the
contract of employment”: Reasons at para. 33.
[10]
The
Judge discarded the appellant’s claim that his layover time should be counted
for the purposes of the allocation. He found that although a pilot may be
required to be away from home during flight assignments, he “was paid on flight
time only” and it was not the intention of the parties to the collective
agreement to recognize layovers for purposes of calculating income: Reasons at
para. 28. He further found that any pay which may have been related to layover
time had been recognized in the collective agreement in the form of extra
minutes of flying time added to the last portion of a return trip: Reasons at
para. 30.
[11]
Regarding
the disability payments, the Judge found that the collective agreement
stipulated that the monthly premium for the disability income insurance plan was
entirely paid by the employer, Air Canada, and that consequently, the
disability benefits received under that plan were taxable in the hands of the
pilots who were Canadian residents pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the “Act”): Reasons at
para. 40.
[12]
As
for the non resident pilots, the Judge refused to consider himself bound by Blauer
since that decision was made under the informal procedure set out under the Tax
Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2, and consequently, pursuant to
section 18.28 thereof, it need not be treated as a precedent for any other
case. The Judge then proceeded to discard the reasoning set out under Blauer
and relied instead on The Queen v. Savage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 428 and Hurd
v. The Queen, [1982] 1 F.C. 554 (C.A.) (“Hurd”) to conclude that an
“income is taxable in Canada pursuant to section 115 of the Act as long as a
nexus can be established with the performance of a duty in Canada” and that any
“material acquisition which confers an economic benefit to the taxpayer such as
a disability payment, constitute an income for the purpose of sections 3 and
115 of the Act”: Reasons at para. 42. The Judge thus accepted the Minister’s
allocation of the disability payments between income earned in Canada and income earned outside Canada, which in the appellant’s case was determined to be 50%.
The issues in appeal
[13]
Though
the appellant raises numerous interrelated issues in his memorandum, these can
be subsumed into the three following questions:
a. Was there an
appearance of bias on the part of the Judge?
b. Did the Judge err by
confirming the allocation method set out in Sutcliffe?
c. Did the judge err in
finding that the disability payments were taxable under section 115 of the Act?
The standard of review
[14]
The
appearance of bias on the part of a judge raises an issue of procedural
fairness that is reviewed on a standard of correctness. The determination of
the appropriate allocation method raises questions of mixed fact and law that
are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error, unless a legal
question may be extricated from the facts, in which case that legal question is
reviewed on a standard of correctness. Finally, the determination as to whether
taxable income under the Act includes the disability payments received by the
appellant requires interpreting the provisions of the Act. Questions of
statutory interpretation are questions of law to be reviewed on a standard of
correctness. (Housen
v. Nikolaisen,
2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paras. 8-9 and 26 to 28).
The relevant provisions of the
Act
[15]
Paragraph
3(a) of the Act sets out the applicable basic rule for computing income
for a taxation year, while subsection 5(1) deals with income from an office or
employment. Subsection 6(1) includes certain amounts as income from an office
or employment, and paragraph 6(1)(f) notably identifies amounts paid as
benefits under a disability insurance plan. Finally, subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i)
provides for the calculation of employment income earned in Canada by a non-resident. These provisions are reproduced in the schedule to these reasons.
First Issue: Allegation of bias
[16]
The
appellant asserts that the Judge gave the appearance that he had pre-judged the
case at the start of the hearing by asking the question: “Why are we here?” In
the appellant’s view, this comment denoted a predisposition on the part of the
Judge. The appellant adds that the Judge also showed that he was not fair and
impartial in his Reasons at paras. 52 to 55, where he implied that the
appellant’s proposed allocation method was “manoeuvring” and an “overly
aggressive manoeuvring to arrive at the lowest possible percentage for duties
performed in Canada”, and then suggested that the law be changed in order to
tax non-resident pilots under a simpler method.
[17]
The
full statement of the Judge made at the beginning of the hearing gives context
to his opening comment:
“JUSTICE McARTHUR: I will just make you aware, and I
am listening to everything you have to say, but I have read the pleadings and I
have read Sutcliffe, and at this point I am wondering why we are here.
(Appeal Book (“AB”) v. 4 at p. 965-966)
[18]
An
inquisitive mind should not be confused with a biased mind. I can see nothing
in this statement which would suggest the Judge’s mind was closed. Under the
circumstances, this was a most reasonable and logical question for the Judge to
ask. Sutcliffe had been put forward as a test case, and it had been
decided only five years before the hearing. It dealt with essentially the same
issue as that raised by the appellant, namely the method for allocating the
income of non-resident Air Canada pilots between income earned in Canada and
income earned outside Canada. The fact that the Judge was asking why the
principles set out in Sutcliffe should be revisited five years after
they were approved does not show any form of bias whatsoever, but to me is
indicative of the honest efforts the Judge made to try to understand the
appellant’s argument in light of Sutcliffe. That the Judge chose to be
transparent and communicate those efforts to the appellant, to me indicates
that he was interested and very much receptive to any argument made. I am
somewhat mystified as to how the appellant can allege an appearance of bias on
such thin circumstances.
[19]
The
Judge did find in his Reasons that the appellant’s alternative allocation
method was “aggressive manoeuvring”, but this finding must be understood in the
overall context of the proceedings, which was to decide whether the appellant’s
method was more reasonable than the method set out under Sutcliffe. The
Judge found that the Sutcliffe method was the most reasonable in the
circumstances, and that the one proposed by the appellant was essentially based
on the most aggressive method available to reduce the Canadian component of his
income. Though I can understand that a litigant may be disappointed by the
results of a ruling, the fact that the Judge found one method reasonable and
the other unreasonable and aggressive does not show bias. On the contrary, it
was the Judge’s duty to evaluate the method proposed by the appellant.
[20]
Finally,
it is not unheard of for a judge to include in his reasons suggestions for
legislative reform. Of course, such suggestions should remain rare occurrences.
Here, the Judge was faced with a challenge to an allocation method which had
been recently approved by the Tax Court of Canada in Sutcliffe. He was
also bombarded by the parties with numerous complex technical issues on a whole
range of issues, including flight paths and flight times between Toronto and Vancouver, and time calculations for international flights. These complex
issues were only recently settled between the parties in their partial consent
to judgment filed with this Court. In this context, with the risk of continuing
litigation by other Air Canada pilots challenging the time allocations for the
thousands of Air Canada flights which occur each year, it was not inappropriate
for the Judge to suggest legislative reform.
[21]
As
the Judge aptly noted at para. 55 of his Reasons, “[t]here is a serious need
for a simpler method”. As things now stand, a non-resident Canadian pilot
flying a Canadian aircraft for a Canadian company between two Canadian
destinations is nevertheless deemed to be working outside of Canada if his flight plan takes him outside Canadian airspace. Moreover, complex
calculations of flight paths and flight times are required to properly
determine the allocation of individual flight times inside and outside of
Canadian airspace. Finally, Article 15 of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention (July 2010), provides
that the remuneration derived in respect of employment exercised aboard an
aircraft operated in international traffic may be taxed in the contracting
state in which effective management of the airline is situated. The third
paragraph of this Article 15 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding the preceding provision of this
Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard a
ship or aircraft operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in
inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.
In these circumstances, the Judge did not show bias
by pointing out that legislative reform should be considered.
Second Issue: The allocation
method
[22]
I
have carefully reviewed the Judge’s reasons, the Sutcliffe decision, the
Air Canada pilots’ collective agreement, and the evidence submitted on behalf
of the appellant in this case. Here, the Judge found that the allocation method
approved under Sutcliffe and based on the method of remuneration set out
in the collective agreement should be preferred over a method using total
travel time related to flight assignments. I can find no error of law or of
fact in the Judge’s Reasons leading to that finding.
[23]
The
provisions of the Air Canada pilots’ collective agreement were extensively
reviewed by Justice Woods in Sutcliffe, and it is not necessary to repeat
here this review. It suffices to point out that hourly base pay, hourly pay,
mileage pay, gross weight pay, overseas operation pay, etc. are all paid as a
function of the time a pilot flies. In addition, many of the other components
of a pilot’s pay, including pay received for non-flying duties, are largely
based on flying time.
[24]
To
put it simply, the pay system for Air Canada pilots is largely based on the
minutes recognized as flying time under the collective agreement. The most
appropriate method of allocating income earned in Canada from income earned
outside Canada under that collective agreement should therefore also be based
on flying time. This method of allocation was approved by Justice Woods in Sutcliffe
and confirmed by the Judge in this case, and we should also confirm it here.
[25]
The
appellant has failed to show why we should disregard the method set out in the
collective agreement in order to favour a method which is largely based on
non-remunerated wait time and layover time. I note that although this method
may favour the appellant’s circumstances in light of his assignments to
international flights with foreign based layovers, it may well disadvantage
other Air Canada pilots who have layovers in Canada. The appellant’s proposed
method is not based on the terms of the collective contract, nor does it ensure
any greater fairness in the allocation of the income of Air Canada pilots. It should not be retained.
Third Issue: The disability
payments
[26]
The
Air Canada pilots’ collective agreement sets out in some length the details of
the group disability income plan. The plan provides for a reasonable level of
income protection during periods that a pilot is, for medical reasons, unable
to perform his regular duties. Participation in the plan is a condition of
employment, and the employer pays the total monthly premium for the related
group disability income insurance plan.
[27]
The
benefits under the plan are captured under paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act,
which includes as income from an office or employment all amounts received by a
taxpayer in a year which were payable on a periodic basis in respect of the
loss of all or part of the taxpayer’s income from an office or employment
pursuant to a disability insurance plan to which the taxpayer’s employer has
made a contribution.
[28]
The
appellant however submits that such disability benefits are not taxable in the
hands of non-residents. The appellant essentially relies on Blauer to
support his position. In Blauer at para. 24, Justice Hershfield of the
Tax Court of Canada was of the view that subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) of
the Act “does not include all payments that are employment income when earned
by a non-resident but rather it includes only a certain type of employment
income; namely income from the performance of the duties of an office or
employment.” Since, in his view, disability insurance payments or wage loss
replacement payments are not received in consideration of employment services
rendered, they are excluded from the ambit of that subparagraph: Blauer at
para. 16.
[29]
Like
the Judge, I would not follow the reasoning set out in Blauer.
[30]
In
my view, it is important to note that subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) of the
Act specifically refers to section 3, which itself refers to the notion of
income from an office or employment. Section 3 is found in Division B of Part 1
of the Act concerning the “Computation of Income”. The notion of income from an
office or employment is itself further refined in subsections 5(1) and 6(1) of
the Act, also found in Division B of Part 1. As such, all these provisions
should be interpreted together in a manner which ensures a consistent and
harmonious meaning to the notion of income from an office or employment,
whether such income is earned by a Canadian resident or by a non-resident. It
is indeed a well-known principle that the provisions of the Act are to be read
in their entire context, and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, with the
scheme of the Act as a harmonious whole, the object of the Act, and the
intention of Parliament: Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC
54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601 at para. 10; A.Y.S.A. Amateur Youth Soccer
Association v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2007 SCC 42, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 217 at
para. 16.
[31]
Under
subsection 6(1), Parliament has specifically identified certain benefits and
amounts which are included as income from an office or employment, including
notably director’s fees received in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue
of an office or employment (6(1)(c)); amounts allocated under an
employees profit sharing plan (6(1)(d)); amounts paid under a sickness
or insurance plan, a disability insurance plan or an income maintenance
insurance plan to which the employer contributes (6(1)(f)); amounts
payable under a salary deferral arrangement (6(1)(i)); automobile
operating expense benefits (6(1)(k)); etc.
[32]
I
see no reason why such benefits and amounts set out in subsection 6(1) should
not be included in the income of a non-resident under subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i)
of the Act where these benefits or amounts are received or paid as a result of
the duties of an office or employment performed in Canada. I note that this
Court has held that since subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) specifically refers
to section 3 of the Act which is found in Division B of Part 1 of the Act,
regard must be had to section 7 of the Act in the computation of the income of
a non-resident, also found in Division B of Part 1: Hurd, above at
pp. 557-558. As such, the same principle applies with regard to subsection 6(1)
of the Act.
[33]
The
fact that subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) refers to incomes from duties of
offices and employments performed by the non-resident person in Canada does not
exclude from the scope of that paragraph the benefits and amounts referred to
under subsection 6(1) of the Act. Rather, the words “duties” and “performed”
are simply used in this context to distinguish between incomes earned from
offices or employments in Canada from those earned outside Canada.
[34]
I
am reinforced in this view by the second segment of subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i)
which seeks to capture employment income earned outside Canada while the person
was residing in Canada, which second segment reads as follows: “and, if the
person was resident in Canada at the time the person performed the duties, outside
Canada”.
[35]
The
appellant’s interpretation of subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) would exclude
from taxation many of the monetary and non-monetary benefits set out in
subsection 6(1) and received by a non-resident as a result of employment in Canada. Such an interpretation is not supported by the wording of subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i),
nor is it consistent with the notion of income from an office or employment as
clearly and unambiguously set out in the Act. The appellant’s interpretation
should consequently be discarded.
[36]
In
their partial consent to judgement, the parties have agreed to apply the
Minister’s allocation of the disability amounts between income earned in Canada
and income earned outside Canada, in the event this Court finds that the
payments are taxable under subparagraph 115(1)(a)(i) of the Act. It will
not therefore be necessary to decide here the method of allocation which
applies to such amounts when paid to a non-resident.
Conclusions
[37]
I
have rejected all the issues raised in this appeal by the appellant, and I
would normally dismiss the appeal were it not for the partial consent to
judgment reached by the parties. I would consequently allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada for the sole purpose of referring
the appellant’s reassessments in respect to the 1995 to 2000 taxation years
back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment, in accordance with
the facts set out in the partial consent to judgment.
[38]
The
Judge did not order costs in the Tax Court of Canada, and I would not disturb
his decision on this matter. However, I would order costs against the appellant
in this appeal.
"Robert M.
Mainville"
“I
agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
“I
agree
Eleanor R. Dawson J.A.”
SCHEDULE
Pertinent extracts from the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)
|
2. (1) An
income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for
each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the
year.
(2) The taxable income of a
taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the
additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.
(3) Where a
person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
(a) was
employed in Canada,
(b) carried
on a business in Canada, or
(c) disposed
of a taxable Canadian property,
at any time in the year or a previous year, an income
tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income
earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.
3. The income of a taxpayer for a
taxation year for the purposes of this Part is the taxpayer’s income for the
year determined by the following rules:
(a) determine the total of
all amounts each of which is the taxpayer’s income for the year (other than a
taxable capital gain from the disposition of a property) from a source inside
or outside Canada, including, without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, the taxpayer’s income for the year from each office, employment,
business and property,
|
2. (1) Un impôt sur le revenu doit être payé, ainsi qu’il
est prévu par la présente loi, pour chaque année d’imposition, sur le revenu
imposable de toute personne résidant au Canada à un moment donné au cours de l’année.
(2) Le
revenu imposable d’un contribuable pour une année d’imposition est son revenu
pour l’année plus les ajouts prévus à la section C et moins les déductions
qui y sont permises.
(3) Un impôt
sur le revenu doit être payé, ainsi qu’il est prévu par la présente loi, sur
son revenu imposable gagné au Canada pour l’année, déterminé conformément à
la section D, par la personne non imposable en vertu du paragraphe (1) pour
une année d’imposition et qui, à un moment donné de l’année ou d’une année antérieure,
a :
a) soit été employée au Canada;
b) soit exploité une entreprise au
Canada;
c) soit disposé d’un bien canadien
imposable.
3. Pour déterminer le revenu d’un
contribuable pour une année d’imposition, pour l’application de la présente
partie, les calculs suivants sont à effectuer :
a) le
calcul du total des sommes qui constituent chacune le revenu du contribuable
pour l’année (autre qu’un gain en capital imposable résultant de la
disposition d’un bien) dont la source se situe au Canada ou à l’étranger, y
compris, sans que soit limitée la portée générale de ce qui précède, le
revenu tiré de chaque charge, emploi, entreprise et bien;
|
|
5. (1) Subject
to this Part, a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year from an office or
employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities,
received by the taxpayer in the year.
|
5. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente
partie, le revenu d’un contribuable, pour une année d’imposition, tiré d’une
charge ou d’un emploi est le traitement, le salaire et toute autre
rémunération, y compris les gratifications, que le contribuable a reçus au
cours de l’année.
|
|
6. (1) There
shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year
as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are
applicable
(a) the
value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever received or
enjoyed by the taxpayer in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by
virtue of an office or employment, ...
...
(f) the
total of all amounts received by the taxpayer in the year that were payable
to the taxpayer on a periodic basis in respect of the loss of all or any part
of the taxpayer’s income from an office or employment, pursuant to
(i) a
sickness or accident insurance plan,
(ii) a
disability insurance plan,
(iii) an
income maintenance insurance plan, or
(iii.1) a
plan described in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iii) that is administered or
provided by an employee life and health trust,
to or
under which the taxpayer’s employer has made a contribution, not exceeding
the amount, if any, by which
(iv) the
total of all such amounts received by the taxpayer pursuant to the plan
before the end of the year and
(A) where there
was a preceding taxation year ending after 1971 in which any such amount was,
by virtue of this paragraph, included in computing the taxpayer’s income,
after the last such year, and
(B) in any other
case, after 1971,
exceeds
(v) the
total of the contributions made by the taxpayer under the plan before the end
of the year and
(A) where there
was a preceding taxation year described in clause (iv)(A), after the last
such year, and
(B) in any other case, after
1967;
|
6. (1) Sont à inclure dans le calcul du revenu d’un
contribuable tiré, pour une année d’imposition, d’une charge ou d’un emploi,
ceux des éléments suivants qui sont applicables
a) la valeur de la pension, du logement et autres avantages
quelconques qu’il a reçus ou dont il a joui au cours de l’année au titre,
dans l’occupation ou en vertu d’une charge ou d’un emploi, [...]
[…]
f) le total des sommes qu’il a reçues
au cours de l’année, à titre d’indemnité payable périodiquement pour la perte
totale ou partielle du revenu afférent à une charge ou à un emploi, en vertu
de l’un des régimes suivants dans le cadre duquel son employeur a contribué :
(i) un régime d’assurance contre la maladie ou les accidents,
(ii) un régime d’assurance invalidité,
(iii) un régime d’assurance de sécurité du revenu,
(iii.1) un régime visé à l’un des sous-alinéas (i) à (iii) qui
est administré ou offert par une fiducie de soins de santé au bénéfice
d’employés,
le total
ne peut toutefois dépasser l’excédent éventuel du total visé au sous-alinéa
(iv) sur le total visé au sous-alinéa
(iv) le total des sommes qu’il a ainsi reçues avant la fin de
l’année et :
(A) lorsqu’une
de ces sommes a été, en vertu du présent alinéa, incluse dans le calcul de
son revenu pour une année d’imposition antérieure se terminant après 1971,
après cette année,
(B) sinon,
après 1971,
(v) le total des cotisations versées par le contribuable dans le
cadre du régime avant la fin de l’année et :
(A) lorsqu’il
y a eu une année d’imposition antérieure, visée à la division (iv)(A), après
cette année,
(B) sinon,
après 1967;
|
|
115. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the taxable income
earned in Canada for a taxation year of a person who at no time in the year
is resident in Canada is the amount, if any, by which the amount that would
be the non-resident person’s income for the year under section 3 if
(a) the non-resident person had no
income other than
(i) incomes from the duties of offices and employments
performed by the non-resident person in Canada and, if the person was
resident in Canada at the time the person performed the duties, outside Canada,
|
115. (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, le revenu
imposable gagné au Canada pour une année d’imposition d’une personne qui ne
réside au Canada à aucun moment de l’année correspond à l’excédent éventuel
du montant qui représenterait son revenu pour l’année selon l’article 3:
a) si elle
n’avait pas de revenu autre :
(i) que les revenus tirés des fonctions
de charges et d’emplois exercées par elle au Canada et, si elle résidait au
Canada au moment où elle exerçait les fonctions, à l’étranger,
|
Email this Content