Paragraph 146.3(1)(b.1)
Administrative Policy
14 September 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 24, p. 19 ¶2214)
It is the responsibility of the trustees of the plan to determine the fair market value of plan assets. Where the fair market value of a mortgage held by the plan is in fact nil, there is no need to assign it a value for purposes of determining the "minimum amount".
8 February 1990 T.I. (July 1990 Access Letter, ¶1339)
In determining the number of whole years, one should consider only completed years and disregard fractions of years. In light of s. 30 of the Interpretation Act (Canada), a person born on December 31, 1920 or January 1, 1921 would have been one year old at the commencement of 1922, and 69 years old at the beginning of 1990, for purposes of s. 146.3(1)(b.1).
15 December 1989 T.I. (May 1990 Access Letter, ¶1234)
A spouse who acquires the right to amounts payable under the RRIF of an annuitant can change the number of years on which the minimum amount is based only by establishing a new RRIF.
Subsection 146.3(2) - Acceptance of fund for registration
Administrative Policy
3 October 1996 T.I. 962856 (C.T.O. "RRSP Administration & Investment Management Fees")
Payment by an annuitant of the fees charged for the management of property of an RRIF would be prohibited by s. 146.3(2)(f) and would result in an inclusion in income of the annuitant equal to the fair market value of the RRIF property.
Paragraph 146.3(2)(e)
Administrative Policy
10 January 1996 T.I. 952766 (C.T.O. "Irrevocable Beneficiary Under Insured Registered Retirement Income Fund")
In response to a query as to whether a RRIF could be established to name the spouse as successor annuitant, and children the irrevocable beneficiaries upon the spouse's death, RC indicated that there is nothing in the Act which would prevent an annuitant from entering into an arrangement under which he irrevocably designated a beneficiary in accordance with the Insurance Act.
Paragraph 146.3(2)(f)
Administrative Policy
23 January 2004 Memorandum 2003-005193 -
Damages in respect of breach of contract or a tort paid by an employer to compensate for investment losses caused by the employer as administrator of a registered plan which has been established for a group of employees are not considered employment income to the employees; nor is the employer or the employee considered to have made a contribution to the plan as a consequence of the payment of the damages.
Subsection 146.3(3) - No tax while trust governed by fund
Paragraph 146.3(3)(c)
Administrative Policy
31 January 2007 T.I. 2006-021311
After stating that "it is our general view that any undertaking or activity of a taxpayer that is carried on for profit or with a reasonable expectation of profit would be viewed as carrying on a business", the Directorate indicated that "it would appear that a RRIF that engages in a securities lending practice for a fee would likely be considered to be carrying on a business".
Subsection 146.3(4) - Disposition or acquisition of property by trust
Cases
St. Arnaud v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 5074 [at 5909], 2013 FCA 88
The taxpayers were fraudulently induced to purchase worthless securities with their RRSP funds. Webb JA found that s. 146(9) did not apply to include the difference between the purchase price and the (nil) fair market value in the taxpayers' income. The trial judge had erred in concluding that securities had in fact been acquired. Under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, the corporations in question could not hold shares in themselves, so that a purported acquisition by one of the RRSPs of shares which the vendor corporation purportedly owned of itself was not valid. Furthermore, in the case of purported purchases by other of the RRSPs of shares of a corporation from a third party, the evidence supported a finding that such "vendor" did not own such shares.
The taxpayers had also argued that s. 146(9) should only apply in situations where the acquisition of property by an RRSP or RRIF is part of a scheme devised to allow an annuitant to extract funds from an RRSP or RRIF without paying tax on such amounts. The majority found it was unnecessary to consider this argument in light of its conclusions above.
In a concurring opinion, Sharlow JA agreed with the taxpayer's alternative argument. The purpose of s. 146(9) is not to punish investment decisions merely because they prove to be unwise - that is, merely because the fair market value of an acquired property is less than the taxpayer thinks it is. For example, a taxpayer who spends $800,000 of RRSP funds on securities that she believes are worth $800,000 but are in fact only worth $600,000 clearly should not be hit with a $200,000 income inclusion (para. 61). There was no basis in the present case for concluding that the taxpayers should be treated any differently.
(Another taxpayer attempted to purchase the worthless shares with RRIF funds, and the judges reached similar conclusions regarding the application of the similarly worded s. 146.3(4).)
Subsection 146.3(6) - Where last annuitant dies
Administrative Policy
7 March 1990 T.I. (August 1990 Access Letter, ¶1387)
Where the surviving spouse is not named as beneficiary in either the RRIF application or the will but is the sole beneficiary of the will, the taxpayer should submit complete details in writing to his local district taxation office for consideration.
Subsection 146.3(11) - Change in fund after registration
Administrative Policy
3 October 1996 T.I. 963156 (C.T.O. "Fees for RRSP and RPP")
Expenses relating to the administration or management of the property in an RRIF will result in an income inclusion to the annuitant pursuant to s. 146.3(11).