Taylor,
TCJ:
—This
is
an
application
for
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
a
notice
of
objection,
which
was
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario
on
September
23,
1985.
There
were
several
technical
points
raised
by
the
taxpayer
and
by
counsel
for
the
Minister,
relating
to
the
chronology
of
events
and
the
time
frame
during
which
certain
action
should
have
been
or
could
have
been
taken
by
the
taxpayer
in
order
to
ensure
her
right
of
objection
and/or
appeal.
Without
going
into
detail,
if
these
points
were
the
only
relevant
ones,
I
would
have
no
hesitation
in
granting
the
application.
However,
as
I
see
it,
the
crux
of
the
issue
is
a
bit
more
specific.
The
issue
which
would
arise
in
an
appeal
(if
heard)
would
be
whether
the
taxpayer
is
entitled
to
avail
herself
of
the
provisions
of
subsection
146(5)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended,
by
adding
a
further
amount
of
current
contributions
to
a
registered
pension
plan
covered
under
paragraph
8(1)(m)
of
the
Act,
by
the
purchase
of
an
RRSP
(up
to
the
maximum
of
$3,500)
—
when
the
total
of
that
current
contribution,
plus
an
amount
contributed
for
past
services
already
exceeds
$3,500.
Simply
put,
if
such
a
situation
is
not
permitted
by
the
Act,
then
this
taxpayer
does
not
fulfil
subparagraph
*167(5)(c)(iii)
of
the
Act
requiring
“reasonable
grounds
for
objection
to
the
assessment”.
Unfortunately
it
appears
to
me
that
the
Court
must
review
the
point
in
some
detail,
in
order
to
satisfy
that
requirement
of
the
Act,
if
this
application
is
to
be
granted.
In
the
case
at
bar,
Mrs
Reid,
a
sergeant
in
the
Toronto
Police
Force,
had
an
amount
of
$2,984.31
deducted
from
her
salary
for
current
services
in
the
year
1983.
In
addition
she
made
a
specific
contribution
of
$2,049.64
to
the
same
superannuation
fund,
administered
by
her
employer,
on
account
of
past
services.
The
Minister
at
the
hearing
confirmed
that
both
of
these
amounts
had
been
allowed
to
Mrs
Reid
as
deductions
claimed.
Further,
however,
the
taxpayer
paid
an
amount
of
$515.69
as
a
contribution
to
a
Registered
Retirement
Savings
Plan,
in
order
to
bring
her
current
year's
total
up
to
the
maximum
of
$3,500
($2,984.31
+
$515.69).
It
is
this
amount
of
$515.69
which
the
Minister
has
disallowed,
since
the
total
of
$2,984.31
(supra)
plus
$2,049.64
(supra)
totals
$5,033.95
—
an
amount
in
excess
of
the
$3,500,
asserted
by
the
Minister
to
be
the
maximum
deductible
under
the
circumstances
of
this
appeal.
As
I
understand
the
Minister’s
position,
a
taxpayer
could
have
an
amount
of
$3,500
deducted
from
his/her
salary
as
a
current
service
contribution,
and
also
have
deducted
(or
separately
contributed)
to
a
superannuation
fund
a
further
$3,500
for
past
services,
making
a
total
of
$7,000
—
but
the
same
taxpayer
could
not
use
the
RRSP
provisions
of
the
Act
in
order
to
avail
himself/herself
of
the
same
maximum
of
$7,000
in
the
event
one
of
the
contributions
was
less
than
the
$3,500
permitted
for
each.
That
such
a
dichotomy
is
difficult
for
a
taxpayer
to
rationalize,
is
understandable
—
but
if
indeed
the
words
of
the
Act
reflect
that
interpretation,
that
is
the
way
it
must
be.
The
explanation
provided
by
the
Minister's
counsel
on
this
point,
was
to
the
effect
that
the
start
of
the
restriction
is
to
be
found
in
subsection
146(5)
of
the
Act,
the
significant
portion
of
which
reads
as
follows:
146
(5)
—
There
may
be
deducted
.
.
.
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts
.
.
.
of
any
premium
paid
..
.
not
exceeding
.
.
.
an
amount
that,
when
added
to
the
amount,
if
any,
deductible
under
paragraph
8(1)(m)
in
computing
the
income
of
the
taxpayer
for
the
year,
does
not
exceed
the
lesser
of
$3,500
.
.
.
It
is
not
difficult
to
see
how
the
Minister
has
reached
the
conclusion
that
this
taxpayer
has
already
exceeded
the
limit,
which
is
$3,500
—
referred
to
as
“an
amount''
in
subsection
146(5)
of
the
Act.
I
admit
that
the
rationale
for
that
limitation
under
the
circumstances
of
this
application,
is
not
evident
to
me,
and
none
was
proffered
by
counsel.
None
need
be
proffered
by
counsel,
but
in
my
view
the
possible
ambiguity
of
the
section
entitles
this
taxpayer
to
be
absolutely
certain
that
just
such
an
interpretation
applies.
I
am
not
prepared
to
extinguish
this
taxpayer's
right
of
appeal,
based
upon
paragraph
167(5)(c)(iii)
of
the
Act,
that
there
are
no
“reasonable
grounds”’
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment.
The
taxpayer
is
accorded
an
opportunity
to
advance
her
views
regarding
the
merit
of
the
appeal
itself.
The
application
is
granted.
Application
granted.
Email this Content