Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.
Subject: E. William Abrahamson v. M.N.R. [[1991] 1 C.T.C. 2061] 1991 DTC 213
Your memorandum of April 23, 1991, to the Foreign Section, Rulings Directorate has been forwarded to us for reply. You requested our comments on the effect of the above mentioned decision on the Department's position as stated in Directive ASG-89-6 (the "Directive").
The main issue of the Abrahamson decision is that it is contrary to the Department's position, as stated in ASG-89-6, that pension income retain its identity when it is paid from a U.S. pension plan to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The Department's position in paragraph 3 of the Directive is that a Canadian resident can roll amounts from a U.S. pension to an IRA pursuant to Article XVIII of the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention (the "Convention"), but amounts subsequently paid out of the IRA are considered to be pension benefits pursuant to subparagraph 56(1)(a)(i).
This position was applicable to both trusteed and custodial plans fully funded from pensions. Also, paragraph 4 of the Directive indicates that, for those plans partially funded from pensions and partially from other sources, this position applied to the portion funded from the pension, and per paragraph 5, annuities from an IRA funded, or partially funded, by a rollover from a pension plan were treated similarly.
The Abrahamson decision did not uphold the Department's position that pension income retained its identity when it was flowed through an IRA. If we accept that position for all IRA's then paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive would no longer apply.
The Abrahamson decision was based on three factors. First, a right to tax the amount has to exist and the Department cannot rely on the Convention to grant this right. As explained in three below, the judge believed there was no right to tax these payments. Secondly, even if a tax free roll to an IRA under the Convention implied that subsequent payments from the IRA were taxable, the Convention was effective only from 1980 and was not in force in 1975. Thirdly, the IRA was a non-resident inter vivos trust and did not have the characteristics of a pension. The claim to a pension benefit was satisfied when the amount was paid out and the fact that it was transferred to an IRA was irrelevant.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to electronically copy and to print in hard copy for internal use only. No part of this information may be reproduced, modified, transmitted or redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system for any purpose other than noted above (including sales), without prior written permission of Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 1991
Tous droits réservés. Il est permis de copier sous forme électronique ou d'imprimer pour un usage interne seulement. Toutefois, il est interdit de reproduire, de modifier, de transmettre ou de redistributer de l'information, sous quelque forme ou par quelque moyen que ce soit, de facon électronique, méchanique, photocopies ou autre, ou par stockage dans des systèmes d'extraction ou pour tout usage autre que ceux susmentionnés (incluant pour fin commerciale), sans l'autorisation écrite préalable de l'Agence du revenu du Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5.
© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 1991
Email this Content