Federal Court


Income tax

Deferred income plans

Minister refusing cancellation of tax arising from taxpayer’s excess contributions to RRSP

In 2007 taxpayer transferred $17,000 into RRSP at another bank but that amount exceeded RRSP deduction limit by $15,486. Taxpayer received letter from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in 2014 notifying taxpayer that she may have had excess RRSP contributions during 2007 and subsequent taxation years that were subject to tax of 1 percent per month; that she had not filed T1-OVP return to report and pay tax; and if she had RRSP excess contributions CRA would charge late-filing penalty and interest on any return filed late. In April 2015, CRA issued notices of assessment for 2007 to 2013 taxation years regarding taxpayer’s excess contributions to her RRSP. Taxpayer withdrew her RRSP to eliminate her excess contribution and CRA received request for taxpayer relief regarding 2007 to 2015 taxation years. CRA issued notices of assessment for 2014 and 2015 taxation years. Minister refused cancellation of tax arising from taxpayer’s excess contributions to her RRSP in 2007 and requests for second review and then for third review were both refused by Minister. Minister waived late-filing penalties and arrears interests levied for 2007 to 2015 taxation years and issued notices of reassessment bringing balance owing to $10,798.71, which taxpayer paid in full. Taxpayer applied for judicial review of decision. Application dismissed. Minister was justified in refusing to conduct third review. Power to conduct third review and to waive tax for excess contribution to RRSP under s. 204.1(4) of Income Tax Act was discretionary and standard of review for both decisions was reasonableness. In letter received by CRA, taxpayer did not provide any new information. Actions by taxpayer did not constitute reasonable steps and exceeded reasonable delay. 

Pouchet v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2083, 2018 CarswellNat 2663, 2018 FC 473, 2018 CF 473, Peter Annis J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Times story this week addresses a proposed amendment to the provincial Juries Act that would repeal the rule that prevents people convicted of an offence from serving as jurors. Do you agree with this change?