[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
1999-2083(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉE LANDREVILLE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on March 15, 2000, at Montréal, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge P.R. Dussault
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: J. René Bellerose
For the Respondent: Ninette Singoye, Student-at-law
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1994 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16th day of March 2000.
|
"P.R. Dussault" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20000525
Docket: 1999-2083(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉE LANDREVILLE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
P.R. Dussault, J.T.C.C.
[1] So that was essentially the meaning of my question. It is that when a taxpayer contributes to a spousal RRSP, if subsequently there are amounts to be included in the spouse's income, in this case that of Ms. Landreville, there is an exception that provides that contributions to the RRSP in the year of withdrawal and in the two previous years are reallocated to the person who made the contributions.
[2] Obviously, that would have been the only way to reduce the $78,000 included in Ms. Landreville's income for 1994, that is, to reduce the amount of the contributions for 1994, if applicable, and for 1993 and 1992. That was all that was meant by my question concerning subsection 146(8.3). I have no evidence on that. The RRSP was in Ms. Landreville's name, granted, and there was a withdrawal in 1994 to pay the husband's debts. That does not change the tax treatment in any way.
[3] The wording of the Act is very clear. Under subsection 146(8), it is included in Ms. Landreville's income for 1994.
[4] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of May 2000.
|
"P.R. Dussault" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor