Date: 20110127
Docket: A-261-10
Citation: 2011 FCA
28
CORAM: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
BETWEEN:
GEORGE
GAISFORD
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver,
British Columbia, on January 24,
2011.
Judgment delivered
at Vancouver, British
Columbia,
on January 27, 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MAINVILLE
J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: NADON
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20110127
Docket:
A-261-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 28
CORAM: NADON
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
GEORGE
GAISFORD
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
MAINVILLE
J.A.
[1]
This
concerns an appeal of a decision of Webb J. of the Tax Court of Canada dated
June 17, 2010 cited as 2010 TCC 332 which rejected the Appellant’s claims that
his 2007 income for the purposes of determining the guaranteed income
supplement under the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9 (“OAS”)
should not include amounts received in that year from his Registered Retirement
Income Fund (“RRIF”) and should not include the gross-up amount for dividends
he received in that year.
[2]
The
Appellant’s basic argument before the Tax Court and in this appeal is that the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (“ITA”) does not define
income, and consequently, compulsory RRIF withdrawals and the gross-up of
dividend revenues, though taxable amounts for the purposes of the ITA, should
not be treated as income for the purposes of the OAS.
[3]
The
problem with the Appellant’s argument is that it ignores the plain and clear
language of both the OAS and the ITA. The guaranteed income supplement is
dependent upon a person’s income as its purpose is to supplement the monthly
OAS pension for those seniors with limited income. The guaranteed income
supplement is thus adjusted to take into account the income of a beneficiary in
accordance with adjustment formulas set out in the OAS.
[4]
Under
section 2 of the OAS, the “income” of a person for a calendar year “means the
person’s income for the year, computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act”
subject to certain deductions which are not relevant to the Appellant’s
situation. Division B of the ITA sets out the rules for the computation of
income under that act.
[5]
Both
paragraphs 56(1)(t) and 82(1)(b) of the ITA are included in its Division B.
Paragraph 56(1)(t) provides that amounts received under a RRIF during a year
are to be included in computing a taxpayer’s income for the year, subject to
certain adjustments which do not apply here. Paragraph 82(1)(b) provides that
an individual taxpayer shall include in computing income a percentage gross-up
of amounts received from a corporation resident in Canada on account of taxable
dividends.
[6]
In
light of these clear provisions of the OAS and the ITA, the Appellant’s
arguments have no legal foundation and must be rejected.
[7]
The
Appellant is arguing for a policy change to the existing OAS scheme which he
perceives as unfairly penalizing low income elderly pensioners who have
contributed to registered retirement savings plans or who have accumulated
savings for their retirement in the form of investments in Canadian
corporations. However, the courts are not the appropriate forum for the Appellant’s
issues.
[8]
I
would therefore dismiss this appeal without costs.
"Robert M. Mainville"
“I agree
Marc Nadon J.A.”
“I
agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-261-10
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF WEBB J. OF THE
TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED JUNE 17, 2010, CITATION NO. 2010 TCC 332
STYLE OF CAUSE: GEORGE
GAISFORD v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: January 24, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MAINVILLE J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: January 27, 2011
APPEARANCES:
|
George Gaisford
|
FOR THE APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
Marla Teeling
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content