John
B
Goetz:—These
are
appeals
from
reassessments
of
the
appellant’s
1973
and
1974
taxation
years.
Facts
The
appellant
was
a
full
professor
of
English
employed
by
the
University
of
Calgary
at
all
times
material
to
these
appeals.
He
applied
for
and
obtained
sabbatical
leave
from
the
University
of
Calgary
from
September
1,
1973
to
April
30,
1974,
and
was
given
vacation
leave
from
August
1
to
August
31,
1973
and
from
May
1
to
July
31,
1974.
The
purpose
of
the
leave
was
to
enable
the
appellant
to
consult
with
international
experts
in
the
English
language.
While
he
was
absent
from
Canada
in
England,
he
rented
a
house,
which
he
owned,
by
way
of
verbal
lease
during
the
period
in
which
he
would
be
absent
from
Canada.
The
appellant
contends
that
during
the
period
of
his
sabbatical
he
was
not
a
resident
of
Canada
but
rather
of
the
United
Kingdom.
The
Minister,
on
the
other
hand,
maintains
that
he
had
retained
his
Canadian
fiscal
residence
and
relied,
inter
alia,
on
subsection
2(1),
paragraph
6(1)(a)
and
subsection
250(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended,
and
on
Articles
3(2)(a)
and
19(2)
of
the
Canada-United
Kingdom
Tax
Agreement.
On
his
departure
from
Canada,
his
wife
advised
the
Family
Allowances
Department
of
their
absence
and
received
a
lump
sum
for
family
allowances
upon
their
return
to
Canada.
The
appellant
maintained
his
telephome
in
his
name,
rental
of
which
was
paid
by
his
lessee;
he
maintained
his
bank
account
in
Calgary
into
which
his
remuneration
as
an
employee
of
the
University
of
Calgary
was
deposited
monthly.
He
owned
his
home
in
Calgary
since
1962
and
is
still
living
in
that
house.
He
has
invested
in
stocks,
shares
and
bonds
in
Canada
and
stated
that
he
had
no
other
intention
but
to
return
to
Canada
after
his
leave
was
completed.
Findings
I
repeat
here
the
jurisprudence
and
the
facts
relating
to
sabbatical
leave
as
outlined
in
the
decision
of
Thomas
C
Saunders
v
MNR.
Article
3(1)
and
(2)(a)
of
the
Canada-United
Kingdom
Tax
Agreement,
1966
reads
as
follows:
Article
3.
(Fiscal
domicile)
(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”);
Clearly
the
appellant
had
a
permanent
home
available
to
him
in
Canada
upon
his
return
from
his
leave
and
vacation
in
the
United
Kingdom.
Further,
all
his
vital
interests
appear
to
be
in
the
Province
of
Alberta,
Canada.
I
therefore
find
that
pursuant
to
subsection
250(3)
of
the
Act
that
the
appellant
was
subject
to
pay
income
tax
in
Canada
during
the
period
of
sabbatical
and
vacation
leave
in
that
he
was
“ordinarily
resident
in
Canada”
during
his
leave
in
the
United
Kingdom.
I
therefore
dismiss
the
appeals.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content