Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
the
amount
claimed
by
the
taxpayer
as
registered
retirement
savings
plan
premiums
for
the
year
1975.
The
appellant
is
a
resident
of
Peachland,
British
Columbia,
and
during
the
year
in
question
placed
$1450
in
the
plan,
representing
approximately
20%
of
the
income
noted
on
a
T4A
Slip.
That
T4A
slip
reads
as
follows
in
its
essential
elements:
PAYEE:
WARRENDORF,
E
M
C/O
DR
J
KITSON.
SUMMERLAND
RESEARCH
STATION
AGRICULTURE
CANADA,
SUMMERLAND,
BC
ISSUED
BY:
NATIONAL
RESEARCH
COUNCIL
DIVISION
DIVISION
CONSEIL
NATIONAL
DE
RECHERCHES
OTTAWA,
K1A
0R6
OTHER
INCOME
(Box
H)
$7,249.99
INCOME
TAX
DEDUCTED
(Box
I)
$1,362.50
PDF
STIPEND
—
BOURSES
DE
RECHERCHES
POST-DOCTORALES
(NRC)
The
notice
of
appeal
reads
in
part
as
follows:
1)
I
paid
income
tax
on
my
“income"
at
the
same
rate
as
any
other
taxpayer
and
therefore
I
should
have
the
right,
as
a
taxpayer.
to
put
money
into
a
RRSP.
2)
If
my
fellowship
is
not
considered
an
“income"
then
I
should
have
the
“income
tax"
paid
on
those
monies
refunded.
3)
When
fellowships
became
subject
to
income
tax
in
the
late
1960’s
it
was,
in
my
opinion,
an
oversight
that
fellowships
did
not
become
listed
with
the
“earned
incomes’’
of
paragraph
146(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
I
do
not
think
it
fair
to
be
penalized
for
an
oversight.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
appellant
also
indicated
on
the
notice
of
objection
(filed
with
the
Department
on.
July
19,
1976,
and
rejected)
that:
.
.
.
having
already
paid
taxes
on
the
money
not
allowed
as
a
RRSP
deduction
and
being
subject
to
taxation
of
the
money
that
was
put
into
the
plan
when
I
take
the
money
out
of
the
RRSP
that
I
contracted
for
this
year.
The
respondent
contended
that:
the
appellant’s
principal,
source
of
income
for
the
year
under
appeal
(save
and
except
the
amount
of
$687.24,
interest
and
investment
income)
was
a
post-doctoral
fellowship
which
is
classified
as
“Other
Income"
under
the
Act;
is
made
taxable
to
the
extent
to
which
it
exceeds
$500:
and
is
not
included
in
the
definition
of
“earned
income"
in
the
Act.
It
is
understandable
that
the
appellant
is
somewhat
concerned
since
her
work
(as
described
to
the
Board)
was
similar
to
that
of
an
employee.
Nevertheless
it
is
certain
that
the
appellant
was
not
an
employee
of
the
National
Research
Council,
the
very
fact
that
the
record
of
the
income
was
provided
on
a
T4A
slip
denotes
that,
and
indeed
it
is
specified
thereon
as
other
income.
The
amount
in
question
does
not
qualify
as
“earned
income’’
for
purposes
of
the
deduction
claimed.
Dealing
with
the
three
points
raised
in
the
notice
of
appeal,
the
Board
notes
for
the
record
that
she
did
not
pay
tax
on
the
income
at
the
same
rate
as
any
other
taxpayer—she
was
allowed
a
tax
free
portion
of
$500;
she
should
not
be
entitled
to
a
refund
of
the
income
tax
paid—because
that
would
constitute
a
basis
for
taxing
only
income
considered
as
earned,
rather
than
all
income-^
including
fellowships,
grants,
etc;
and
while
it
may
be
considered
an
oversight
by
the
appellant
that
the
amount
in
question
is
not
“earned
income”
for
income
tax
purposes,
it
is
that
way
in
the
Act,
and
the
Board
is
not
empowered
to
make
any
change.
Turning
to
the
comment
contained
in
the
notice
of
objection
regarding
possible,
even
probable
double
taxation,
again
the
Board
can
only
note
the
reference
but
cannot
deal
with
it.
There
is
no
question
that
the
taxpayer
intended
to
open
up
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan,
and
did
so.
The
contribution
therefore
is
locked
into
the
plan
whether
or
not
the
tax
relief
sought
becomes
a
reality.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content