John
B
Goetz:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
appellant
against
an
assessment
made
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
his
1976
taxation
year.
The
appellant
conceded
to
the
accuracy
of
paragraphs
2,
3,
4
and
5
of
the
respondent’s
reply
to
notice
of
appeal
which
read
as
follows:
2.
The
Appellant
has
been
employed
by
the
Vancouver
General
Hospital
as
a
nursing
orderly
since
April
6,
1972,
and
on
August
22,
1975
he
began
contributing
to
the
Municipal
Superannuation
Fund.
3.
By
letter
dated
February
9,
1976,
the
Vancouver
General
Hospital
was
advised
by
the
Provincial
Superannuation
Branch
in
Victoria,
British
Columbia,
that
the
appellant
should
have
commenced
contributions
to
the
Municipal
Superannuation
Fund
on
April
6,
1973.
4.
The
appellant
subsequently
contributed
in
1976
$1,234.61
for
past
services
which
amount
he
claimed
as
a
deduction
together
with
amounts
of
$564.14
for
current
registered
pension
plan
contributions
and
of
$1,737.53
for
Registered
Retirement
Savings
Plan
contributions
made
between
March
2
and
December
31,
1976.
5.
By
Notice
of
Assessment,
dated
June
2,
1977,
the
Appellant’s
deduction
for
Registered
Retirement
Savings
Plan
contributions
was
reduced
to
$404.70.
The
respondent
further
alleged
in
paragraph
6
of
the
reply
to
notice
of
appeal:
6.
In
so
assessing
the
Appellant,
the
Respondent
relied,
inter
alia,
on
the
following
asumptions:
(a)
the
Appellant’s
earned
income
for
1976
was
$11,233.99*;
(b)
the
amount
of
deductible
premiums
in
1976
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
subsection
146(5)
was
$2,246.80*,
being
the
lesser
of
20%
of
the
Appellant’s
earned
income
and
$3,500
less
registered
pension
plan
contributions
in
the
total
amount
of
$1,798.75
pursuant
to
paragraph
8(1)(m)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
above
amounts
were
amended
at
the
hearing
of
this
appeal.
The
above
statement
of
facts
were
not
met
by
a
denial
on
the
part
of
the
appellant
in
the
giving
of
his
evidence.
Findings
The
appellant’s
basic
argument
was
that
the
lump
sum
payment
of
$1,737.53
should
have
been
spread
back
to
the
years
preceding
1976
back
to
1973.
The
respondent
alleged
in
paragraph
8:
The
Respondent
submits
that
the
property
allowed
only
$404.70
of
the
total
amount
of
$1,737.53
claimed
as
a
deduction
from
income
in
respect
of
contributions
to
a
Registered
Retirement
Savings
Plan
as
the
balance
of
$1,332.83
is
not
deductible
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
subsection
146(5).
Counsel
for
the
respondent
argued
that
an
employer
can
deduct,
for
contribution
to
an
RRSP,
up
to
an
amount
being
the
difference
between
deductions
allowed
under
paragraphs
8(1)(m)
and
146(5)(a)
of
the
Act.
As
a
result
I
find
that
the
appellant
is
only
entitled
to
a
deduction
of
$448.05
as
a
contribution
made
under
his
RRSP
for
the
year
1976.
See
T
W
Dexter
v
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
3243;
78
DTC
1881,
a
decision
rendered
by
my
learned
brother
Member
of
the
Board,
Guy
Tremblay,
Esq,
CGA.
The
above
citation
includes
a
number
of
cases
which
were
submitted
in
the
Dexter
case.
I
therefore
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content