The
Chairman:—This
is
the
appeal
of
Brian
J
Corcoran
from
an
income
tax
assessment
in
respect
of
the
1973
taxation
year.
There
are
two
distinct
issues
in
this
appeal.
The
first
is
in
relation
to
taxes
imposed
on
certain
benefits
received
by
the
appellant
in
1973
at
the
cancellation
of
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan.
The
second
is
an
amount
of
$60
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
a
deductible
tuition
expense
which
was
disallowed
by
the
Minister.
As
to
the
first
issue,
the
appellant
in
1973
paid
an
amount
of
$2,500
into
a
Royal
Trust
M
Fund
Registered
Retirement
Savings
Plan
which
he
held.
In
the
same
year
he
cancelled
his
registered
retirement
savings
plan
and
received
from
it
an
amount
of
$5,498.52.
In
an
amended
tax
return
for
1973
the
appellant
did
not
include
the
$5,498.52
in
the
computation
of
his
income
for
that
year
but
did
seek
to
deduct
the
amount
of
$2,500
as
premiums
paid
into
the
plan.
In
reassessing
the
appellant,
the
Minister
considered
that
the
benefit
received
by
the
appellant
in
1973
from
the
registered
retirement
savings
plan
was
the
difference
between
$5,498.52
less
the
amount
of
$2,500
paid
in
premiums
in
that
year.
The
benefit
received
by
the
appellant
from
the
plan
in
1973
was
considered
to
be
$2,998.52
and
taxable,
pursuant
to
paragraph
56(1)(h)
and
subsection
146(8)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appellant
had
joined
the
registered
retirement
savings
plan
in
February,
1972
and
felt
that
the
general
averaging
principle
should
be
applied.
As
counsel
for
the
respondent
pointed
out,
the
genera!
averaging
provisions
of
subsection
118(1)
of
the
new
Act
are
automatically
calculated
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
for
all
income
tax
returns
and
were
already
included
in
the
appellant’s
assessment
for
the
1973
taxation
year.
Income
Tax
Application
Rule
(ITAR
40)
to
which
the
appellant
also
referred
deals
with
superannuation
or
pension
funds
and
counsel
for
the
respondent
contends
that
ITAR
40
is
not
applicable
in
the
circumstances
of
this
appeal.
In
my
opinion
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan,
is
quite
different
from
a
superannuation
and
pension
fund
and
had
ITAR
40
been
meant
to
include
the
registered
retirement
savings
plan
it
would
have
been
included
in
the
wording
of
the
section.
I
conclude
therefore
that
the
Minister
did
not
err
in
including
the
amount
of
$2,998.52
in
the
appellant’s
income
for
the
1973
taxation
year.
Dealing
now
with
the
second
issue,
the
appellant
in
1973
was
enrolled
in
a
Certified
General
Accountant’s
course
and
claimed
as
tuition
fees
the
following
amounts:
|
Course
Fees
|
$110.00
|
|
Finalist
Fees
|
$95.00
|
|
Critique
of
Exam
|
$50.00
|
|
Fees
for
re-reading
of
Exams
|
$60.00
|
Total
$315.00
In
its
reassessment
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
the
amount
of
$60
as
fees
for
re-reading
of
exams
on
the
ground
that
such
an
expenditure
does
not
come
within
the
word
‘‘tuition”
used
in
paragraph
60(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Although
exemption
sections
must
be
strictly
interpreted,
I
find
it
extremely
difficult
to
see
a
significant
difference
between
an
expenditure
of
$50
for
a
critique
of
exams
which
was
allowed
by
the
Minister
and
a
$60
fee
for
re-reading
of
exams.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
pointed
out
that
such
an
expenditure
is
incurred
only
when
there
is
some
doubt
as
to
whether
a
student
attained
a
passing
mark
and,
as
such,
should
not
be
included
in
what
is
ordinarily
considered
as
tuition
fees.
It
seems
to
me
that
all
the
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant,
including
fees
for
re-reading
of
exams,
are
all
related
and
indeed
an
integrated
part
of
the
appellant’s
intention
and
effort
of
acquiring
additional
knowledge
in
a
specialized
field
and
obtaining
a
degree
or
certificate
attesting
that
he
studied
the
course
and
passed
the
exams.
In
my
view,
passing
the
exams
and
being
recognized
as
having
done
so
iS
as
necessary
a
phase
of
academic
achievement
as
is
taking
the
course
and
expenditures
made
in
order
to
find
the
necessary
points
to
attain
the
passing
mark.
This
is
a
part
of
the
same
process
and
procedure
of
learning
found
in
an
educational
institution.
In
my
opinion,
the
fees
paid
for
re-reading
of
exams
come
within
the
meaning
of
the
word
“tuition”
used
in
paragraph
60(f)
which
refers
to
“the
amount
of
any”
fees
for
his
tuition
paid
to
the
educational
institution”.
For
these
reasons
the
appeal
is
allowed
in
part
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and.
reassessment
so
as
to
allow
the
deduction,
as
tuition
fees,
in
the
amount
of
$60
paid
by
the
appellant
for
re-reading
of
exams.
In
all
other
respects
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content