Cases
Dunphy v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1028 [at 2671], 2009 TCC 619
Sheridan, J. determined the portion of $45,000 payment received by the taxpayer on termination by his employer to be allocated to the taxpayer's human rights complaint by splitting the difference between the $17,277 amount claimed by the taxpayer and the $5,000 that the employer admitted it might be willing to pay in respect of that claim in correspondence with the CRA.
Tremblay Estate v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 1558, 2009 TCC 437
A lump sum of approximately $2.5 million received by the taxpayer, an executive, on the termination of his employment pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that stated that the payment "will be characterized as a Retirement Allowance" received the full amount as a retiring allowance notwithstanding that in the Settlement Agreement there was a non-solicitation clause and a clause in which he agreed not to make any "disparaging or critical remark" about his employer or its practices. Little, J. found that the two-fold test in Overin (that but for the loss of employment, the amount would not have been received, and the purpose of the payment was to compensate for loss of employment) was satisfied here.
Forest v. The Queen, 2008 DTC 6506, 2007 FCA 362
The Court varied a finding of the Tax Court Judge that the full $152,969 received by the taxpayer was a retiring allowance and instead found that only $23,050 of the sum was a retiring allowance in light of the policy of his employer to pay severance of one month for each year of employment. Accordingly, the balance of the sum received by him was an exempt receipt that was in respect of his action against his employer for harassment.
Saardi v. The Queen, 99 DTC 767, Docket: 97-2280-IT-G (TCC)
A lump sum of Cdn.$50,000 that the taxpayer received from his former U.S. employer was found to have been received not from his loss of employment but, rather, from the settlement of his claim for amounts due by the employer before his loss of employment. Accordingly, the amount was not a retiring allowance.
Schwartz v. The Queen, 96 DTC 6103, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254
The taxpayer received $400,000 in settlement of his claim for damages following the repudiation by a company ("Dynacare") of its agreement to employ him as a senior vice-president. La Forest J. found that because at the time of the repudiation, the taxpayer was not yet an employee of Dynacare, the amount received by him could not qualify as a retiring allowance.
Merrins v. The Queen, 94 DTC 6669 (FCTD)
The taxpayer was unsuccessful in his argument that $60,000 paid to him pursuant to an award of an arbitrator and following the filing of a grievance by him in respect of being laid off by his employer, should be regarded as compensation for the extinction of the right to have his grievance arbitrated and, therefore, as the disposition of a chose in action. Pinard J. noted that the words "in respect of" have been found to be words of wide import and there clearly was a connection between the $60,000 award and the loss of the taxpayer's employment.
In response to a further submission that the arbitrator's award was invalid, Pinard J. stated (p. 6670) that:
"What is important is the fact that the award was not challenged and that the amount of $60,000 was received and the benefit accepted by the plaintiff".
The Queen v. Albino, 94 DTC 6071 (FCTD)
In 1973, the taxpayer agreed to participate in an "incentive performance plan" of his employer under which the taxpayer was granted "share equivalent units" from time to time which "vested" between five and ten years after the date of granting and which provided for payments being made only upon the taxpayer ceasing to be an employee. Given that one of the two objectives of the plan was to provide an incentive for important employees to remain with the company (the other being to provide an incentive for such employees to continue devoting their energies towards the continued growth of the company), a lump sum in excess of $600,000 received by the taxpayer when he was terminated by the company in 1987 was a retiring allowance rather than remuneration under ss.6(3) and 5(1) and, therefore, was subject only to tax in accordance with s. 212(1)(j.1) of the Act.
Paquin v. The Queen, 90 DTC 6663 (FCTD)
On October 23, 1978 it was agreed that the taxpayer's employment would terminate effective December 31, 1978. This latter date was the effective date of the termination of his employment for purposes of s. 56(1)(a)(viii) (which came into effect on November 16, 1978) given that his duties of employment continued into December 1978.
Lorenzen v. The Queen, 81 DTC 5251, [1981] CTC 377 (FCTD)
The taxpayer arranged for the transfer of the assets of one company to a second company that was also controlled by him. Although the taxpayer was paid $20,000 in respect of relinquishing the presidency of the first company, it could not be said that he received this amount in respect of "loss" of office because he engineered the termination of office himself, and he suffered no loss because the business was carried on by him as before. Similarly, there was no "retirement" because he remained a director of the first company and he continued with the same business at the second company. [C.R.: S.56(1)(a)(ii)]
Girouard v. The Queen, 80 DTC 6205, [1980] CTC 284 (FCA)
Amounts paid pursuant to a liquidated damages clause in an employment contract in respect of loss of employment were found to have the same character for tax purposes as amounts paid pursuant to settlement agreements concluded after the time of dismissal.
Choquette v. The Queen, 74 DTC 6563 (FCTD)
Before finding that an amount received by the taxpayer did not qualify as a retiring allowance under the definition in the pre-1972 Act (and after finding that the sum was deemed to be remuneration under what now is s. 6(3) of the Act), Décary J. stated (at p. 6568) that "I cannot believe that an employment of 29 months can constitute long service".
See Also
Rae v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1107 [at 3044], 2010 TCC 130
[The taxpayer, a corporate controller, was suspended with pay after alleging that management was manipulating the Canadian corporation's financial records in order to maximize bonuses paid to management. The taxpayer took a new job at a different corporation. He brought a complaint to the Canadian corporation's UK controlling corporation. The UK corporation paid him a total of $160,000 for constructive dismissal (his contract provided for such payment if he were in fact dismissed), for an award under UK whistleblower protection legislation, and for the Canadian corporation having misrepresented its financial position during the previous negotiations leading up to his having been hired.
The Minister claimed that the entire $160,000 was received in respect of loss of employment because, but for the loss of employment, no payment would have been made. Boyle J. found that $45,000 of the amount was attributable to a lost bonus and other benefits and in respect of how his termination had been handled (and hence a retiring allowance), with the balance being non-taxable amounts in respect of his other claims.
Schewe v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1056 [at 2810], 2010 TCC 47
At a time that the taxpayer was the dean of a program at a university, the university determined to also permit the taxpayer to become a full-time instructor at the university at a future date. The university terminated his employment, and the taxpayer was then awarded, in an action he brought against the university, nine months' salary and a sum of $90,000 in respect of the breach by the university of its agreement to have the taxpayer become an instructor.
The latter sum was not taxable to the taxpayer as it was not in respect of loss of employment of the taxpayer but was damages for the loss of the future position.
Wedge v. The Queen, 2005 DTC 1213, 2005 TCC 480
A payment made to the taxpayer by his employer upon his termination of employment by an affiliated corporation did not qualify as a retiring allowance given that it was paid as remuneration for services he had rendered to is employer.
Ahmad v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 2065, Docket: 2001-4304-IT-G (TCC)
The taxpayer was wrongfully demoted and stripped of his significant responsibility by his employer at the instigation of a major customer (Ontario Hydro). Two years later, the taxpayer sued Ontario Hydro, and a year after that he was dismissed by his employer when he sued it as well.
Damages received by him from Ontario Hydro, which were characterized as being in respect of the tort of inducement of breach of his employment contract with his employer, were found not to be in respect of the ultimate loss of his job but, rather, in respect of the stripping of his responsibilities as a nuclear researcher, and therefore were not "in respect of" loss of employment, a phrase which suggested to Miller T.C.J. "a primary purpose test".
Miller T.C.J. also indicated that he did not view damages for construction dismissal as constituting a retiring allowance.
Fostey v. The Queen, 99 DTC 1004, Docket: 97-3398-IT-G (TCC)
The taxpayer was the chief executive officer of a corporation that sold its business to another corporation. In finding that a lump sum received by the taxpayer from the corporation qualified as a retiring allowance notwithstanding that he became an employee of the purchaser, Hamlyn TCJ. noted that the taxpayer was not a shareholder, director, or officer of the purchaser and that he performed clerical functions rather than executive functions at his new employer.
Anderson v. The Queen, 98 DTC 1190 (TCC)
The full amount of a lump sum received by the taxpayer in settlement of his action for alleged wrongful dismissal was a retiring allowance notwithstanding that a portion of the sum was calculated by reference to expenses he incurred in moving to a subsequent job, (so that, after being so reimbursed, he was not in any better economic position).
Blaker v. The Queen, 93 DTC 1025 (TCC)
A lump sum of $90,000 received by the taxpayer in consideration for his resignation from a governor-in-council appointment to the National Parole Board constituted a retiring allowance. Mogan J. stated (p. 1027) that he could "find nothing that would make an appointment by the Governor-in-Council different from an office or employment in any other sense"
Niles v. MNR, 91 DTC 806 (TCC)
The taxpayer, whose employment was terminated and who then received the sum of $5,000 from his employer following his filing of a formal complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, received that amount as a retiring allowance. It did not "matter why he was laid off whether for breach of contract or because of an alleged discrimination. He received the amount to settle his claim against the employer for loss of employment"
Merrins v. MNR, 91 DTC 699 (TCC)
The taxpayer, who was laid off by his employer and filed a grievance under the collective agreement, received an award from the arbitrator as a retiring allowance.
Crighton v. MNR, 91 DTC 511 (TCC)
Upon terminating the taxpayer's employment, his employer offered to pay him the sum of $150,000 "in whatever form you choose which best suits your financial and tax requirements". After negotiation, it was agreed that $52,000 would be contributed to his RRSP, and the balance of $98,000 to an employee benefit plan established for his benefit. Watson D.J.TC held that although the outright acceptance of this offer by the taxpayer may very well have resulted in him being considered to have received a retiring allowance or a s. 56(2) benefit, no such entitlement to a retiring allowance occurred. Instead, the $98,000 was paid to a qualifying employee benefit plan.
Serafini v. MNR, 89 DTC 653 (TCC)
The regular salary package which the taxpayer received during the one-year period between the time that he ceased his duties of employment and the time specified in his retirement agreement as the time of his retirement, did not qualify as a "retiring allowance". Sarchuk J. stated:
"It is neither unusual nor infrequent that one can remain employed without actually working. Instances quickly come to mind such as sabbatical leave enjoyed by tenured university professors; leaves of absence, both with and without pay, for educational purposes; collective agreements permitting the utilization of excess sick leave as pre-retirement or vacation leave and so forth."
Harel v. D.M.R. of the Province of Quebec, 77 DTC 5438, [1977] CTC 441, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 851
A lump sum received on his retirement by the taxpayer in settlement of his accumulated sick-leave credit under the sickness benefit plan contained in the collective agreement, was received by him in respect of "long service" pursuant to s. 45 of the Income Tax Act (Quebec). An employee who remains at his post instead of being absent because of illness for 15 days a year is in fact giving longer service to his employer.
Administrative Policy
7 August 2014 T.I. 2014-0521901E5 - Damages in settlement of grievances
the employer abolished the employee's position, but the employee remained employed by the same employer and was assigned different duties. The union filed grievances in regards to the employee being assigned to new duties, alleging that the change in the employee's working conditions constituted illegal discrimination. The employee then retired and received a retirement allowance amount as well as a payment in settlement of his grievances. Was the settlement amount taxable?
In the course of general comments, CRA stated:
[T]he words "in respect of" [in s. 248(1) – "retiring allowance"] have been held… to imply a connection between the loss of employment and the subsequent receipt, where the primary purpose of the receipt was compensation for the loss of employment. Two questions set out by the Courts to determine whether a connection exists for purposes of a retiring allowance are as follows:
- But for the loss of employment would the amount have been received? and,
- Was the purpose of the payment to compensate a loss of employment?…
[W]here general damages are received in respect of personal injuries sustained before or after the loss of employment (for example, in situations of harassment during employment or defamation after dismissal), or where a loss of employment involves a human rights violation and is settled out of court, general damages may be viewed as unrelated to the loss of employment and therefore non-taxable.
21 March 2013 T.I. 2012-0467221E5 - Retiring allowance converted to ELHT contribution
In response to a query as to made to employees. an employer must withhold income tax from a lump sum pre-retirement leave payment ("LPLP") made to a retiring employee if the employee directs a portion or all of the LPLP to an employee life and health trust ("ELHT"), CRA stated:
the LPLP is received on retirement and relates to an employee's long service with the employer and sick leave credits. As such, the LPLP would be considered a retiring allowance and subject to income tax withholding.
1998 Revenue Canada Paper 9824890
Comprehensive discussion of issues arising out of termination of employment.
1997 Ruling 970913
Damages to be received by a resigning employee in respect of her sexual harassment claim and in respect of a claim for malicious prosecution, malicious investigation, breach of statutory duty, abuse of power, intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, injury to reputation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and as reimbursement of legal expenses not incurred in respect of the settlement of the retiring allowance portion of amounts paid to her, would be exempt receipts.
8 October 1996 T.I. 962701 (C.T.O. "Loss of Employment, Mental Distress, Damages")
"Generally ... payments made by an employer to an employee in connection with the loss or termination of employment, whether or not received as damages or pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal, are characterized as a retiring allowance... . To the extent that damages which are awarded by a Human Rights Tribunal, or on a settlement in lieu thereof, do not relate to the loss of employment but relate solely to damages arising from a human rights violation, such damages are not required to be included in income. The reimbursement of legal costs do not form part of a retiring allowance but such amounts are taxable under paragraph 56(1)(l.1)...".
Income Tax Technical News, No. 7, 21 February 1996
Where an individual retires from all employment on the sale of the employer's active business but agrees to carry on certain administrative duties for the employer for which no remuneration or director's fees will be received, the individual may still be considered to have retired or to have lost the employment.
Where no assurance or offer of new employment with an affiliate has been given at the time an individual ceases employment, there will be considered to be a loss of employment.
Where the employer's pension plan recognizes any part of the service with a former related employer, then all the years of service with the former employer can be included in the total number of years for purposes of calculating the eligible amount of the retiring allowance.
3 August 1995 Memorandum 952001 (C.T.O. "Retiring Allowance and Return to Same Employer")
"If a person is terminated and receives a termination payment, without any assurance of being rehired, it is our position that the payment can be a retiring allowance. If the person is subsequently rehired, the nature of the payment will not change. On the other hand, where the person is given assurance before termination of being rehired, and is subsequently rehired, we do not consider a loss of employment to have occurred"
4 July 1995 T.I. 5-951675 -
Where an individual was terminated from full-time employment and, at the same time, was rehired on a part-time basis for a three-year period, a payment made to the individual at the time of such termination would not qualify as a retiring allowance.
15 June 1995 T.I. 950837 (C.T.O. "Fringe Benefits and Retiring Allowance")
"The amount paid by the employer on the employee's behalf for the maintenance of health benefits is not considered a retiring allowance for the purposes of the Act... . However, it is our general position that where an employer extends to former employees, those benefits which are otherwise non-taxable to current employees by virtue of subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the benefits so described will also not be taxable to the former employees (provided the benefit arises by virtue of the former employment)"
9 February 1995 Memorandum 941852 (C.T.O. "Damages for Employment and Related Human Right Violation")
Where the taxpayer has resigned voluntarily and the remedy sought by her in her complaint was the loss of salary attributable to her former employer's failure to reclassify or promote her, the related settlement amount received by her would be considered remuneration rather than a retiring allowance.
General damages received for loss of self-respect, mental anguish, humiliation or hurt feelings would not form part of a retiring allowance and would be received free of tax. The portion of the settlement allocated to such amounts would be required to be reasonable.
1 November 1994 T.I. 5-942603 -
"Continued participation in a former employer's health plan (i.e.,drug, dental, long term disability plan) for a restricted period of time would not, in itself, indicate that employment has not been terminated, particularly when the employer's plan specifically permits former employees to be covered under the plan"
11 October 1994 Memorandum 941816 (C.T.O. "Ex Gratia Payment")
An Ex gratia payment authorized by a Order in Council in connection with a wrongful dismissal grievance will be taxable either as employment income or a retiring allowance.
13 September 1994 T.I. 5-941977 -
A retiring allowance cannot be paid on the downgrading of an employment position.
28 June 1994 T.I. 5-941324
Where a retiring allowance is to be paid in installments, any amount calculated as interest on the installments will characterized as interest and will not be transferable to an RRSP under s. 60(j.1). The installments will be taxable in the year of receipt.
24 June 1994 T.I. Memorandum 941610 (C.T.O. "Workforce Reduction Payment")
"If the parties agreed during negotiations before or after termination that the employee is entitled to a certain notice period, then a payment in lieu of such notice is employment income since the employee's right to it was an implicit term of the employment contract." As stated in IT-196R2, s. 6(3) applies to such a payment.
22 June 1994 T.I. 5-941274
"The Department has taken the position that a payment in lieu of earnings for the period of reasonable notice which is made by virtue of the terms of an employment contract (whether explicit or implied) will be treated as employment income and not as a retiring allowance ... . With respect to the continuation of benefits in situation of loss of an employment, the Department has taken the position that in a case where pension benefits continued to accrue or normal employee benefits continued to be enjoyed by an individual, it is unlikely that employment has ceased even though the individual is not required to report to work."
12 May 1994 Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta Round Table, Q. 12, File No. 940969 (C.T.O. "Retiring Allowance Pay in Lieu of Notice")
A payment made in lieu of earnings for the period for which reasonable notice is required by virtue of the terms of an employment contract (whether implied or explicit) or by statute will be treated as employment income and not as a retiring allowance.
1 March 1994 T.I. 94022 (C.T.O. "H.A.A. 7278-1 Retiring Allowance Return to Employment")
Where an individual is rehired (on a casual, part-time or contract basis) by a former employer or an affiliated employer, shortly after leaving an office or employment, the individual will be considered not to have retired or suffered a loss of employment or office. However, where she has retired (or has been terminated) without any assurance at that time of being rehired by the former employer, and receives from the former employer a payment based on long service (or for loss of employment or office), the payment will qualify as a retiring allowance even if the parties have an understanding that the individual might be rehired at a later time when circumstances have changed. If an individual is engaged shortly after leaving her employment to perform services as an independent contractor, a factual determination must be made.
8 March 1994 T.I. 5-940008 -
Termination pay received pursuant to s. 57 of the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) does not constitute a retiring allowance whether or not received in a lump-sum amount, whereas severance pay received pursuant to s. 58 of that Act qualifies as a retiring allowance.
17 February 1994 T.I. 5-940052
A person is not considered to have retired or lost an office or employment if pensionable service under a registered pension plan continues to accrue. Accordingly, amounts paid before pensionable service credits are discontinued cannot be treated as retiring allowances.
8 February 1994 Memorandum 933720 (H.A.A. 4749-3) (C.T.O. "Retiring Allowance on Transfer within School")
Head Office generally was of the view that an employee who transfers from a staff support position to a teaching position with the same school board has not retired or suffered a loss of employment. However, if funds associated with pension benefits that accrued to the employee must be transferred to a new pension provision or plan or the pension benefits have been commuted, this might be evidence that a loss of employment had occurred.
93 C.R. - Q. 34
Termination pay in lieu of notice received under s. 57 of the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) will not be a retiring allowance whether or not received in a lump-sum amount, whereas severance pay received pursuant to s. 58 of that Act will qualify as a retiring allowance.
Where a taxpayer sues for wrongful dismissal, a court award or a negotiated settlement has resulted in the receipt of an amount based on the common law rights of the taxpayer, and no mention is made that the taxpayer is to be reinstated, the amount probably will be a retiring allowance.
7 December 1993 T.I. 5-933397 -
It is a question of fact whether a payment of interest in respect of a severance payment is a retiring allowance or interest for purposes of the Act.
19 November 1993 T.I. 5-932508 -
It is a question of fact whether the degree of involvement by an individual in a corporation following the sale of all his shares will be sufficient to conclude that an allowance paid to him on the sale was not a retiring allowance.
5 July 1993 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 33, p. 8, ¶2643)
Under paragraph 30(c) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations, an employee is considered to have been laid off where she was advised that the period of the lay-off would not exceed six months and she was recalled to work within that period. She would not be considered to have her employment terminated unless her laid-off status exceeded the six-month period.
A payment which is described both within the definition of a retiring allowance and under s. 6(3) will be considered to be the former.
10 June 1993 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 32, p. 4, ¶2594)
Where in an out-of-court settlement of a suit brought in connection with the termination of employment, an amount is allocated as damages for violation of human rights, it must be established that human rights issues were involved and that the payment was reasonable compared to awards ordered by actual tribunals, in order for such amount not to be considered a retiring allowance.
4 June 1993 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 32, p. 9, ¶2602)
Where an employee is dismissed, receives an arbitration award and is reinstated in his former position, then if the reinstatement is on a retroactive basis the amounts received in settlement of foregone salary will be included in his employment income even if he did not return to his former employer.
17 May 1993 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 31, p. 1, ¶2507)
Where a long-term unionized employee has been laid off by his employer or has retired without any assurance of being rehired, an amount received under the collective agreement as a result of the lay-off [or retirement] will be a retiring allowance where the employee dealt at arm's length with his employer and received the amount in respect of a loss of office in recognition of long service. The payment would not be considered to be a retiring allowance if the employee were rehired by his employer or an affiliate shortly after the lay-off, and this was foreseeable at the time of the lay-off.
28 April 1993 Memorandum 931202 (C.T.O. "Employment Standards Act (Ontario) (ESA) Retiring Allowances")
Termination pay received pursuant to s. 57 of the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) will be considered to be employment income rather than a retiring allowance whether received directly from the employer or through the Employment Standards Branch.
9 March 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, no. 29, p. 21, ¶2458)
A payment received by a union from an employer who closed one of its operations as compensation for the loss of exclusive bargaining rights, the surrender of one of its bargaining units and the loss of jurisdiction over that unit would be included in the hands of union members when paid to them by the union.
12 January 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 20, p. 16, ¶2385)
When an employee ceases work due to retirement but pension benefits continue to accrue or normal employee benefits continue to be enjoyed by the individual, it is unlikely that employment has ceased, with the result that amounts received during this period would not be considered to be retiring allowances.
12 November 1992, T.I. 911850 (September 1993 Access Letter, p. 413, ¶C56-251)
General damages awarded by a human rights tribunal would not constitute a retiring allowance.
12 August 1992 T.I. 5-921978 -
For purposes of the position that an employee will not have retired if employment continues with an affiliate of the former employer, RC will consider two companies to be affiliated if one is effectively controlled by the other by virtue of any combination of exercisable stock options and economic influence, or if they have an interdependent working relationship which inter alia permits the exchange of employment opportunities. An entity which is one-third owned by three different entities will be considered to be affiliated with each entity.
8 April 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 18, p. 19, ¶1844)
A payment made to an employee upon being promoted to partner is not necessarily a retiring allowance.
5 February 1992 Memorandum 7-920092
Where an employee dies and the balance of accumulated sick leave credits in respect of the employee continue to be paid to his beneficiaries, such payments would constitute retiring allowances in their hands, and not death benefits.
5 February 1992 T.I. (January - February 1993 Access Letter, p 36, ¶C248-123)
It is unlikely that employment has ceased where pension benefits continue to accrue or normal employee benefits continue to be enjoyed by the individual, even though he is not required to report to work. Amounts received by the individual during this period would not be considered to be retiring allowances.
22 January 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 15, p. 5, ¶1707)
A payment will not be considered to be a retiring allowance when, at the time the employee ceases employment, there is assurance that he will be re-employed by an affiliate, defined here as any company that is related, associated with, or that does not deal at arm's length with, the former employer.
10 June 1991 Memorandum (Tax Window, No. 4, p. 27, ¶1287)
An amount received as damages on the withdrawal of an offer of employment may come within the definition if the "withdrawal" is in fact the termination of an employment contract.
90 C.R. - Q4
Where an individual entitled to a retiring allowance dies, the amount received by the estate as a consequence of his death is a death benefit.
23 April 1990 T.I. (September 1990 Access Letter, ¶1436)
Where an individual is a majority shareholder and employee of both A Ltd. and B Ltd., a payment made to him upon his retirement from A Ltd. while he continues to work for B Ltd. will not qualify.
18 October 89 T.I. (March 1990 Access Letter, ¶1156)
Pre-judgment interest received in a court award would be excluded from income, and therefore withholding tax is not required to be deducted on the payment of such amount.
89 C.R. - Q.50
RC does not consider an employee to have retired where he continues employment with any person who acquired or continues the business carried on by the employee's former employer (in the case of the question, by the parent company). Where the employee subsequently receives a retiring allowance on his retirement from the parent company, the years of employment with the subsidiary company will be included in determining the allowable rollover under s. 60(j.1).
86 C.R. - Q.52
a payment made by a partnership to a retired partner may qualify as a retiring allowance provided that the amount is paid in recognition of the taxpayer's long service as an employee.
84 C.R. - Q.20
it is essentially a determination of fact whether a series of payments represents pension benefits under s. 56(1)(a)(i) or retiring allowance under s. 56(1)(a)(ii).
84 C.R. - Q.23
loss of office does not include a transfer (or demotion) from one position to another with the same employer.