John
B
Goetz:—These
are
appeals
by
the
appellant
from
his
reassessments
for
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years.
Facts
The
appellant
came
to
Canada
from
England
in
1962
and
became
a
Canadian
citizen
in
1970.
He
went
to
the
University
of
Calgary
in
1962
where
he
has
been
a
professor
since
that
time.
The
evidence
lead
by
his
counsel
at
the
hearing
was
somewhat
thin
but
it
would
appear
that
he
applied
for
and
obtained
a
sabbatical
leave
from
the
University
of
Calgary
for
the
period
between
August
1,1975
and
July
31,
1976.
A
condition
of
the
sabbatical
was
that
he
return
to
the
University
of
Calgary
to
continue
teaching
there
or
reimburse
the
University
for
salary
paid
to
him
during
his
absence
from
the
University.
He
owned
a
home
in
Calgary
which
he
leased
for
the
period
commencing
September
19,
1975
to
April
15,
1976.
While
in
Scotland
he
entered
into
a
lease
of
a
residence
between
September
1975
to
April
15,
1976.
After
April
15,
1976
he
went
to
England,
Germany
and
Italy
on
a
lecture
tour.
He
states
that
he
fully
expected
to
return
to
Calgary;
his
bank
accounts
were
in
Calgary
and
the
salary
from
the
University
of
Calgary
was
paid
into
that
ac-
count
which
in
turn
was
forwarded
to
his
accountant
in
Scotland.
He
also
owns
a
cottage
15
miles
west
of
Calgary
which
he
acquired
in
1971.
The
appellant
filed
tax
returns
in
the
United
Kingdom.
Findings
The
statement
of
facts
concerning
sabbatical
leave
and
the
jurisprudence
in
the
decision
in
Thomas
C
Saunders
v
MNR
apply
with
equal
force
to
these
appeals.
Article
3
of
the
Canada-United
Kingdom
Tax
Agreement
reads
in
part
as
follows:
(1)
For
the
purposes
of
this
Agreement
the
terms
“resident
of
the
United
Kingdom”
and
“resident
of
Canada”
mean
respectively
any
person
who
is
resident
in
the
United
Kingdom
for
the
purposes
of
United
Kingdom
tax
and
any
person
who
is
resident
in
Canada
for
the
purposes
of
Canadian
tax.
(2)
Where
by
reason
of
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(1)
above
an
individual
is
a
resident
of
both
territories,
his
status
shall
be
determined
in
accordance
with
the
following
rules
(a)
he
shall
be
deemed
to
be
a
resident
of
the
territory
in
which
he
has
a
permanent
home
available
to
him.
If
he
has
a
permanent
home
available
to
him
in
both
territories,
he
shall
be
deemed
to
be
a
resident
of
the
territory
with
which
his
personal
and
economic
relations
are
closest
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
his
“centre
of
vital
interests”);
I
find
that
clearly,
from
the
facts
set
forth
above,
that
the
appellant,
at
all
times,
had
a
permanent
home
available
to
him
and
that
if
he
had
a
permanent
home
available
to
him
in
both
territories,
l
deem
him
to
be
a
resident
of
the
territory
with
which
he
has
his
personal
and
economic
relations,
namely
his
centre
of
vital
interests,
which,
of
course,
is
Calgary,
Alberta.
The
appellant
acquired
a
car
for
delivery
to
him
in
Europe
which
he
brought
back
to
Canada
via
Vancouver
which
was
entered
tax
free
by
the
officials
of
Customs
and
Excise.
He
placed
great
reliance
on
this
as
being
indicative
of
the
fact
that
he
had
severed
his
fiscal
residential
relationship
with
Canada.
He
further
relies
upon
certain
information
given
to
him
by
officials
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
as
well
as
in
Interpretation
Bulletins
issued
by
that
Department.
I
find
that
the
respondent
is
not
estopped
for
either
the
acts
of
the
Customs
and
Excise
people
or
persons
employed
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
or
any
Interpretation
Bulletin
being
issued
by
that
Department.
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.
From
the
facts
set
forth
above
as
to
the
period
in
which
the
appellant
was
on
sabbatical
leave
from
the
University
of
Calgary,
I
find
that
he
maintained
his
fiscal
residence
in
Canada
and
that
he
was
“ordinarily
resident
in
Canada”
and
therefore
subject
to
the
provisions
of
subsection
250(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
I
therefore
dismiss
the
appeals.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content