Bonner,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
the
1981
taxation
year.
The
respondent,
on
assessment,
limited
the
amount
deductible
by
the
appellant
in
respect
of
premiums
paid
to
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
on
the
basis
that
the
paragraph
146(5)(a)
limitation
applied.
The
respondent
did
so
because
the
appellant
was
employed
in
January
1981
by
a
company
called
Mollenhauer
Limited
and
as
a
consequence
of
that
employment
the
appellant
was
a
person
who
became
entitled
to
benefits
under
a
pension
fund
or
plan
of
the
sort
described
in
subparagraph
146(5)(a)(i)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Early
in
1981
the
appellant
left
the
employ
of
Mollenhauer
and
upon
doing
so
he
withdrew
his
contributions
and
the
vested
employer
contributions
in
the
plan.
Obviously
as
a
consequence
all
of
his
rights
under
the
plan
ceased.
The
appellant,
who
appeared
on
his
own
behalf
at
the
hearing,
pointed
to
the
general
purpose
of
the
legislation
in
permitting
RRSP
contributions
as
a
deduction
and
he
argued
that
this
purpose
was
not
well
served
where
$2,000
in
deductions
are
lost
by
membership
for
one
month
in
a
pension
plan
which
during
that
month
generated
about
$17
in
benefits.
However
valid
the
appellant’s
observations
may
be,
he
neither
showed
nor
attempted
to
show
that
the
statute
was
misapplied
by
the
assessment
in
issue.
As
I
indicated
during
the
hearing
I
have
some
difficulty
in
seeing
how
the
appellant
could
be
described
as
a
person
who
“‘was
employed
in
the
year
and
as
a
consequence
thereof
was
a
person
who
is
or
may
become
entitled
to
benefits”
within
subparagraph
(i)
in
circumstances
where
before
the
end
of
the
year
and
indeed
before
the
end
of
the
first
month
of
the
year
he
left
his
job,
received
all
that
he
was
entitled
to
under
the
pension
plan
and
ceased
to
be
a
member
of
the
plan.
The
verb
tenses
in
that
portion
of
subsection
146(5)
indicate
a
change
in
time
where
they
shift
from
the
period
of
time
indicated
by
“was
employed”
and
“was
a
person”
to
the
period
in
time
indicated
by
the
words
“who
is”.
As
I
see
it,
the
appellant
may
aptly
be
described
by
the
words
“was
employed
in
the
year
and
as
a
consequence
thereof
was
a
person
who
was
or
might
have
become
entitled”.
He
cannot,
in
my
view,
aptly
be
described
by
the
words
“was
employed
in
the
year
and
as
a
consequence
thereof
was
a
person
who
is
or
may
become
entitled”
after
the
employment
and
membership
in
the
pension
plan
has
ceased.
The
period
of
time
indicated
by
the
words
“who
is”
is,
in
my
view,
that
period
late
in
the
year
or
during
the
first
sixty
days
of
the
next
year
when
a
taxpayer
is
endeavouring
to
determine
the
size
of
the
deductible
contribution
which
he
may
make
to
a
RRSP.
For
the
foregoing
reasons
the
appeal
will
be
allowed
and
the
assessment
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
paragraph
146(5)(b)
limitation
has
application.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content