Duff,
J.:—It
is
quite
plain,
I
think,
that
a
child
does
not
take,
under
para.
(9),
subpara.
(f),
unless
it
attains
the
age
of
twenty-five
years.
It
is
true
that
the
gift
over
is
limited
to
the
case
where
the
child
dies
before
the
"period
of
distribution’’.
But
that
cannot
affect
the
plain
language
which
makes
the
gift
of
the
share
contingent
upon
attaining
the
age
of
twenty-five
years.
This,
it
seems
to
me,
in
itself
leads
to
one
necessary
conclusion
with
regard
to
all
points
in
controversy.
Until
a
child
has
attained
twenty-five
years,
the
destination
of
the
share
is
uncertain,
and
the
beneficiary
is
unascertained
and
unascertain-
able.
That
is
sufficient
to
dispose
of
the
main
point.
It
is
also
sufficient
to
dispose
of
the
subsidiary
point,
because
up
to
that
time
the
accumulated
income
accumulates
as
an
integer
;
and
the
result
is
that
the
appeal
should
be
allowed,
the
judgment
of
the
Court
below
reversed
and
the
assessments
confirmed,
with
costs
throughout.
CANNON,
J.
[after
setting
out
the
facts
agreed
on
by
the
parties,
as
set
out
ante,
p.
116]
:—The
question
of
residence
or
non-residence
in
Canada
does
not
and
cannot
arise
when
the
ultimate
beneficiary
in
the
accumulating
trust
fund
is
not
definitely
known
and
determined
during
the
taxation
period.
The
probable
beneficiaries
could
not
be
definitely
ascertained
before
the
contingency,
i.e.,
their
survival
until
they
reached
twenty-five
years
of
age,
actually
took
place.
We
therefore
have
to
deal
exclusively
with
the
1920
amendment
(c.
49,
sec.
4)
which
covers
the
present
case,
and,
in
my
view,
is
a
complete
taxing
provision
devised
to
tax
in
the
hands
of
a
trustee
resident
in
Canada
income
accumulating
in
trust
for
the
benefit
of
unascertained
persons,
or
of
persons
with
contingent
interests,
without,
for
obvious
reasons,
distinguishing
between
residents
and
non-residents.
I
feel
bound
by
our
decision
in
the
Royal
Trust
case
(Minister
of
National
Revenue
v.
Royal
Trust
Co.
[1928-34]
C.T.C.
80)
and
would
allow
the
appeal
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.