John
B
Goetz:—These
are
appeals
with
respect
to
assessments
for
the
appellant’s
1976
and
1977
taxation
years.
Facts
The
appellant
is
a
professor
of
sociology
in
the
Faculty
of
Social
sciences
at
the
University
of
Calgary.
He
is
an
American
citizen
and
came
to
Canada
on
May
22,1970,
and
has
taught
at
the
University
of
Calgary
continuously
since
that
time
other
than
for
the
period
of
his
sabbatical
leave.
He
obtained
tenure
on
the
staff
in
1972.
Between
1970
and
1976,
he
filed
Canadian
income
tax
returns
and
his
1977
return
was
filed
in
the
United
States
and
was
prepared
by
Mr
Brown,
his
counsel.
The
appellant
applied
and
obtained
a
sabbatical
leave
from
July
1,
1976
to
July
8,
1977,
and
was
going
to
Merida
de
Yucatan,
Mexico,
for
the
purpose
of
studying
the
role
of
women
in
the
family.
When
he
returned
to
Canada,
he
gave
a
report
on
his
work
in
the
United
States
and
in
Mexico
and
was
promoted
to
full
professorship.
He
states
that
he
intended
to
return
to
Canada
as
he
owned
a
house
in
Calgary
and
leased
it
to
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Calgary,
simply
by
way
of
letter,
an
interesting
part
of
which
was
that
the
tenants
would
take
care
of
certain
flowers
and
plants
that
the
appellant
wished
to
leave
in
his
home
and
further
that
he
packed
most
of
his
furniture
in
a
few
rooms
in
the
basement,
expecting,
of
course,
to
return
to
his
home
on
completion
of
his
sabbatical
leave.
In
Mexico
he
leased
a
home
from
month
to
month.
When
he
returned
to
Canada
in
1977,
there
was
no
break
in
his
landed
immigrant
status
as
of
1970.
His
family
allowance
was
cut
off
while
he
was
away
but
his
wife
was
paid
a
lump
sum
on
return
to
Canada.
He
maintained
the
Alberta
Health
Care
coverage
although
he
did
not
continue
to
pay
dues
and
membership
to
various
organizations
in
Canada.
He
had
a
bank
account
in
Canada.
The
money
from
the
University
of
Calgary
would
go
into
this
account
and
then
forwarded
on
to
him.
On
going
to
Mexico,
he
bought
a
number
of
travel
cheques
from
his
savings
account
and
his
salary
from
the
University
of
Calgary
was
deposited
in
his
Calgary
savings
account.
He
also
received
a
grant
from
the
Canada
Council
in
the
sum
of
$10,000
to
carry
Out
the
survey
with
respect
to
the
role
of
women
in
the
family,
plus
travelling
expenses.
The
respondent
claims
that
the
appellant
included
in
his
income
an
amount
of
$16,150.50
as
salary
from
the
University
of
Calgary,
but
failed
to
include
an
additional
amount
of
$7,607.30
paid
by
the
University
of
Calgary
as
Salary,
presumably
on
the
basis
that
said
amount
was
received
by
him
after
June
30,
1976,
the
date
that
the
appellant
allegedly
became
a
nonresident
of
Canada.
The
evidence
relating
to
sabbatical
leave
is
set
out
in
the
case
of
Thomas
C
Saunders
v
MNR
and
applies
to
these
appeals
as
agreed
upon
by
counsel
at
the
outset
of
the
hearing.
Findings
The
jurisprudence
cited
in
Saunders
(supra)
applied
to
these
appeals
and
I
find
that
the
appellant
did
not
divest
himself
of
his
Canadian
residence
during
the
period
of
his
sabbatical
leave.
On
the
basis
of
the
general
facts
relating
to
sabbatical
leave
and
the
law
set
forth
in
Saunders
(supra),
I
find
that
during
the
relevant
taxation
years
the
appellant
was
at
all
times
“ordinarily
resident
in
Canada’’.
Great
emphasis
was
placed
upon
by
counsel
for
the
appellant
on
certain
Tax
Information
Bulletins
issued
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
I
find
that
I
am
not
bound
thereby.
See
MNR
v
Inland
Industries
Ltd,
[1972]
CTC
27;
72
DTC
6013,
at
31
and
6017
respectively:
The
difference
between
the
wording
of
this
memorandum
and
the
wording
of
the
actuarial
certificate
is
quite
substantial
and
it
is
somewhat
surprising
that,
notwithstanding
such
advice,
departmental
approval
was
given
to
the
payments
on
behalf
of
the
Minister.
However,
it
seems
clear
to
me
that
the
Minister
cannot
be
bound
by
an
approval
given
when
the
conditions
prescribed
by
the
law
were
not
met.
(Italics
mine).
Further,
in
Ernest
G
Stickel
v
MNR,
[1972]
CTC
210;
72
DTC
6178,
it
was
held
that
an
Information
Bulletin
published
by
the
Minister
which
misstated
the
effect
of
Article
8(a)
of
a
Tax
Convention
did
not
create
an
estoppel
against
the
Minister.
With
respect
to
estoppel
against
the
Minister,
see
also
the
following
cases:
Cam
Gard
Supply
Ltd
v
MNR,
[1973]
CTC
111;
73
DTC
5133,
affirmed
by
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal,
[1974]
CTC
487;
74
DTC
6429;
Nathan
Cohen
v
Her
Majesty
the
Queen,
[1978]
CTC
63;
78
DTC
6099.
In
the
editorial
note
of
the
decision
in
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
v
Cecil
M
Langille,
[1977]
CTC
144;
77
DTC
5086,
we
read:
Laches
cannot
be
imputed
to
the
Crown;
it
is
a
privilege
of
the
King
not
to
be
bound
by
the
mistakes,
omissions
or
neglects
of
his
officers
or
servants.
For
the
taxation
years
involved
in
these
appeals,
I
find
that
the
appellant
was
“ordinarily
resident
in
Canada’’.
For
the
above
reasons,
I
dismiss
the
appeals.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content