Docket: 2010-2822(IT)I
BETWEEN:
TIMOTHY WILKINS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on June 7, 2011 at Windsor, Ontario
Before: The Honourable
Justice Wyman W. Webb
Appearances:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The
Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Suzanie Chua
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The Appellant’s appeal from the reassessment
made under the Income Tax Act that denied the Appellant’s claim for a
deduction of $17,614 in computing his income for 2008 is dismissed, without
costs.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 16th day of June, 2011.
“Wyman W. Webb”
Citation: 2011TCC297
Date: 20110616
Docket: 2010-2822(IT)I
BETWEEN:
TIMOTHY WILKINS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Webb, J.
[1]
The Appellant was
reassessed to deny a deduction in the amount of $17,614 that the Appellant had
claimed in computing his income for 2008. The amount was identified as “Excess
premium transferred to RRIF” and the deduction was claimed on line 232 of the
Appellant’s income tax return, which is the line for “Other deductions”.
[2]
The only explanation
provided for this claim was provided by the Appellant’s accountant who prepared
the Appellant’s income tax return. He stated that he claimed the deduction
because the amount appeared in box
24 of a T4RIF slip from the
Royal Bank of Canada. He could not otherwise explain the amount
or what it represented.
[3]
The bank manager from
the Royal Bank testified and he stated that generally transfers from one
registered plan to another registered plan are reported in box 24 of a T4RIF. Therefore, if an amount was transferred
from the Appellant’s RRSP to his RRIF, based on the testimony of the bank
manager, such amount would be reported in box 24
of a T4RIF slip.
[4]
In R. v. Find,
[2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, Chief Justice
McLachlin, writing on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that:
48 In this
case, the appellant relies heavily on proof by judicial notice. Judicial notice
dispenses with the need for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or
beyond reasonable dispute. Facts judicially noticed are not proved by evidence
under oath. Nor are they tested by cross-examination. Therefore, the threshold
for judicial notice is strict: a court may properly take judicial notice of
facts that are either: (1) so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the
subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of immediate and
accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable
accuracy: R. v. Potts (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.); J.
Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd
ed. 1999), at p. 1055.
[5]
A copy of a printout of
information from the Royal Bank’s computer system indicating the amounts that
would have been shown on the T4RIF that would have been issued by the Royal
Bank to the Appellant for 2008 was introduced into evidence. However, the
instructions that would normally accompany this form were not introduced into
evidence. It seems to me that I can take judicial notice of the instructions
that would normally accompany this form because such instructions are readily
accessible on the Canada Revenue Agency’s website and I do not doubt the
accuracy of the forms (including the instructions) found on this website.
[6]
The instructions that
are identified with the T4RIF form on the website for the Canada Revenue Agency
indicate the following:
Box 24 – This is
the taxable part of amounts received in the year that is more than the minimum
amount. This amount is already included in box 16. Only report the box 16
amount on your return. If the amount received relates to RRSP contributions you
could not deduct from income, you may be able to claim an offsetting deduction
on line 232. For more information, see line 232 of the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide and Form T746, Calculating Your Deduction for Refund of Unused RRSP Contributions.
[7]
The amount that would
have been included in box 16 of the T4RIF issued by the Royal Bank was
$18,499.
[8]
The Appellant was
retired in 2008. His only sources of income in 2008 were Old Age Security and
Canada Pension Plan payments and such other amounts as he withdrew from his
RRSP or RRIF that he had with the Royal Bank of Canada.
[9]
The Appellant confirmed
that he would not have made any contribution to his RRSP in 2008. He was
actually withdrawing funds from his RRSP in 2008 and therefore it would be
illogical to assume that he was making contributions to his RRSP in the same
year that he was withdrawing funds from his RRSP. I also take judicial notice
of the T1 General Income Tax Return form that is on the Canada Revenue Agency
website and note that a deduction for an RRSP contribution would be reported on
line 208 of such a return, not line 232. There is nothing to suggest that the
Appellant was claiming that the $17,614 was an RRSP contribution that he had
made.
[10]
Whether an amount can be
deducted in computing income is to be determined based on the provisions of the
Income Tax Act. There is simply no basis to support the deduction
claimed. The Appellant did not make any contribution to his RRSP in 2008 and it
appears that it was more likely than not that the amount in box 24, as noted in
the instructions that would have accompanied the T4RIF, was simply the taxable
amount that the Appellant had received from his RRIF that was in excess of the
minimum amount. This amount would have been, based on the instructions noted
above, already included in the $18,499 that would have been reported in box 16. There is nothing to indicate that this amount was
related to RRSP contributions that the Appellant could not deduct in computing
his income. Whether $17,614 was the correct amount that was paid from his RRIF
in excess of the minimum amount is not the issue before me. The only issue is
whether the Appellant was entitled to deduct this amount ($17,614) in computing
his income for 2008.
[11]
As a result the
Appellant’s appeal in relation to the reassessment that denied the Appellant’s
claim for a deduction of $17,614 in computing his income for 2008 is dismissed,
without costs.
Signed at Halifax,
Nova Scotia, this 16th day of June, 2011.
“Wyman W. Webb”
CITATION: 2011TCC297
COURT FILE NO.: 2010-2822(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: TIMOTHY WILKINS AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Windsor,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 7, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 16, 2011
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Suzanie Chua
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content