The
Assistant
Chairman:—The
appeal
of
Fernand
Landry
against
an
income
tax
assessment
dated
August
24,
1973,
for
the
1972
taxation
year,
was
heard
at
Quebec
City
on
June
6,
1975.
The
point
at
issue
in
this
case
is
an
additional
tax
in
the
amount
of
$1,660.89
that
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
added
to
the
tax
payable
by
appellant
for
the
1972
taxation
year.
The
facts
of
this
appeal
are
not
contested;
it
is
a
question
of
the
interpretation
and
application
of
subparagraph
56(1
)(a)(i)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
paragraph
40(1
)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Application
Rules,
1971.
Appellant,
who
was
a
professor
at
the
University
of
Ottawa
from
1955
to
1968,
had
contributed
the
amount
of
$18,089.69
to
that
university’s
pension
plan.
In
1968
appellant
was
hired
as
a
professor
at
Laval
University
in
Quebec
City,
and
since
at
that
time,
under
the
agreement
with
the
University
of
Ottawa,
he
could
not
transfer
this
amount
to
the
Laval
University
pension
plan,
he
had
to
put
it
in
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
administered
by
La
Compagnie
d’Assurance-Vie
Desjardins,
with
which
appellant
had
already
had
dealings.
In
1972
appellant,
who
is
married
and
has
five
children,
wanted
to
study
in
West
Germany
and
live
there
for
a
certain
period
with
his
family.
Accordingly,
he
withdrew
the
money
he
had
placed
in
the
registered
retirement
savings
plan
at
La
Compagnie
d’Assurance-Vie
Desjardins,
which
by
then
amounted
to
$14,328.51.
In
his
1972
income
tax
return
appellant
stated
on
a
special
sheet
of
paper
that
he
had
received
the
abovementioned
amount.
Since
he
considered
it
to
be
from
a
superannuation
or
pension
fund
or
plan,
he
sought
to
distribute
the
income
tax
over
a
period
of
three
years
as
provided
for
in
paragraph
40(1)(a)
of
the
1971
Rules.
This
was
not
accepted.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
admitted
that
appellant’s
contributions
from
1955
to
1968
were
in
fact
to
the
University
of
Ottawa
pension
plan,
but
maintained
that,
once
the
amount
of
$13,089.69
was
transferred
to
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan,
it
ceased
to
be
a
pension
plan
and
was
no
longer
covered
by
paragraph
40(1
)(a)
of
the
1971
Rules.
He
maintained
that
at
that
time
only
subparagraph
56(1)(a)(i)
of
the
Act
was
applicable,
and
that
the
full
amount
of
$14,328.51
received
by
appellant
from
the
registered
retirement
savings
plan
should
have
been
included
in
appellant’s
income
for
the
1972
taxation
year.
I
understand
appellant’s
point
of
view
very
well.
Although
he
was
not
able
to
transfer
to
the
Laval
University
pension
fund
the
$13,089.69
that
he
had
contributed
to
the
University
of
Ottawa
fund
over
several
years,
appellant
felt
that
this
amount
still
constituted
a
pension
fund.
lf
appellant
had
not
transferred
this
amount
to
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
but
had
withdrawn
it,
in
my
opinion
he
would
have
been
able
at
that
time
to
distribute
the
income
tax
payable
over
a
period
of
three
years
as
provided
for
in
paragraph
40(1
)(a)
of
the
1971
Rules.
However,
the
fact
that
he
transferred
this
amount
from
the
University
of
Ottawa
pension
plan
to
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
and
subsequently
withdrew
the
total
amount
means
that
appellant
forfeited
the
tax
advantage
he
is
now
seeking
through
the
retroactive
application
of
paragraph
40(1)(a)
of
the
1971
Rules.
Subparagraph
56(1)(a)(i)
of
the
Act
applies
to
the
circumstances
of
this
appeal.
It
states
clearly
that
the
entire
amount
received
from
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
during
a
taxation
year
must
be
included
in
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
said
year.
The
Board
was
unable
to
find
any
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
that
could
provide
any
relief
for
the
taxpayer
and,
even
though
the
Board
sympathizes
with
the
appellant
on
the
basis
of
the
facts
of
this
appeal,
it
cannot
ignore
the
provisions
of
the
Act
and
must
apply
them
as
they
are
written.
Since
there
is
no
equity
in
tax
law,
the
Board
has
no
choice
but
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content