Bowman
T.C.J.:
This
appeal
is
from
an
assessment
for
the
1996
taxation
year.
It
involves
the
deductibility
of
an
amount
paid
by
the
appellant
for
past-service
registered
pension
plan
(“RPP”)
contributions.
The
facts
are
straightforward.
The
appellant
has
taught
at
Langara
College
in
Vancouver
since
September
1990.
From
September
1965
to
June
30,
1967
she
taught
in
the
Vancouver
Public
School
System.
In
1967,
she
resigned
and
took
up
another
employment.
In
November
1967,
she
applied
for
and
received
her
pension
entitlement
from
the
Teachers’
Pension
Plan
in
the
amount
of
about
$499,
which
apparently
consisted
substantially
of
the
contributions
she
had
made
to
the
plan.
In
1994
or
1995,
when
she
was
teaching
at
Langara
College
she
decided
that
she
should,
in
effect,
“buy-back”
the
RPP
past-service
contribution
for
the
pension
from
September
1965
to
June
30,
1967
and
for
the
period
January
2,
3
and
4,
1978,
when
she
was
teaching
at
Vancouver
Community
College.
These
three
days
had
not
previously
been
included
in
the
calculation
of
her
eligible
contributory
period.
Therefore
she
contributed
$5,206.88
to
the
Teachers’
Pension
Fund
on
April
9,
1996
in
respect
of
the
period
from
September
1965
to
June
1967
and
$11.49
on
June
20,
1996
in
respect
of
the
three
days
in
1978.
The
mathematical
correctness
of
these
amounts
is
not
in
dispute.
Ms.
Watanabe,
an
intelligent
and
careful
person,
communicated
on
several
occasions
with
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
to
confirm
her
entitlement
to
make
these
contributions.
She
informed
them
that
she
had
in
1996
also
made
a
current
contribution
to
the
college’s
RPP
of
$3,696.72
as
well
as
a
contribution
of
$2,986.00
to
her
registered
retirement
savings
plan.
This
was
not
a
casual
enquiry.
She
was
given
and
relied
upon
the
guide
published
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
and
IT-167R6.
Ms.
Watanabe
had
every
reason
to
rely
upon
the
advice
she
received
and
she
did
so
in
good
faith.
Her
understanding
was
that
she
could
deduct
$3,500
in
1996
and
the
remainder
of
$1,718.37
in
1997,
notwithstanding
the
amount
of
her
current
contribution
to
the
college’s
RPP.
The
advice
that
she
received
was
wrong.
Paragraph
6O(/.O3)
provides
that
there
may
be
deducted
in
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
the
following
amount:
(j.03)
—
an
amount
equal
to
the
lesser
of
(i)
the
total
of
all
amounts
each
of
which
is
an
amount
paid
in
the
year
or
a
preceding
taxation
year
by
the
taxpayer
to
a
registered
pension
plan
that
was
not
deductible
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
preceding
taxation
year
and
that
was
paid
as
(A)
a
repayment
under
a
prescribed
statutory
provision
of
an
amount
received
from
the
plan
that
was
included
under
subsection
56(1)
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
ending
before
1990,
or
(B)
interest
in
respect
of
a
repayment
referred
to
in
clause
(A),
and
(ii)
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
$3,500
exceeds
the
amount
deducted
under
paragraph
8(1
)(m)
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
year.
Subparagraph
(i)
would
be
the
amount
of
her
two
contributions,
totalling
$5,218.37.
She
is,
however,
entitled
to
deduct
only
the
lesser
of
the
total
of
the
amounts
in
subparagraph
(i)
and
the
amount
in
subparagraph
(11).
The
amount
in
subparagraph
(ii)
works
out
to
nil
because
the
amount
of
her
current
contribution
deducted
under
paragraph
8(1)(m)
exceeds
$3,500.
The
Minister
in
the
initial
assessment
for
1996
allowed
the
additional
deduction
but
on
reassessment
disallowed
it
and
charged
the
appellant
interest.
He
has
since
agreed
to
waive
the
interest
and
this
must
of
course
be
done.
I
take
this
as
an
acknowledgement
that
her
reliance
upon
the
advice
of
the
officials
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
would
render
it
unfair
to
levy
interest.
Obviously,
there
can
be
no
estoppel
against
the
words
of
a
statutory
provision;
Taylor
v.
R.,
[1997]
2
C.T.C.
201
(Fed.
C.A.);
Goldstein
v.
R.,
[1995]
2
C.T.C.
2036
(T.C.C.),
at
2045.
Notwithstanding
the
waiver
of
interest,
the
situation
remains
highly
unsatisfactory
for
a
number
of
reasons.
In
the
first
place,
if
she
is
not
entitled
to
deduct
the
past-service
payments
that
she
made
to
the
RPP,
she
will
nonetheless
be
required
to
include
the
same
amount
in
income
under
paragraph
56(1)(a)
when
it
is
paid
to
her
out
of
the
RPP
as
a
pension
benefit.
Her
apprehension
of
double
taxation
is
well
founded.
Moreover,
while
it
is
true
that
she
may,
assuming
no
further
change
in
the
legislation,
be
able
to
deduct
the
payments
in
future
years,
this
cannot
happen
until
her
current
contributions
to
her
RPP
are
less
than
$3,500.
As
a
practical
matter
this
will
not
happen
until
she
retires
in
a
number
of
years
and
at
that
time
she
will
presumably
be
in
a
lower
income
tax
bracket.
It
is
obviously
beyond
my
jurisdiction
to
order
the
Minister
to
obtain
a
remission
under
the
Financial
Administration
Act.
However,
I
can
express
the
view
that
this
would
be
a
very
appropriate
case
for
him
to
do
so.
Otherwise,
I
cannot
assist
the
appellant.
I
presume
there
is
no
need
for
me
to
refer
the
matter
back
to
permit
the
Minister
to
implement
his
agreement
to
cancel
the
interest
assessed.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content