Cases
Woods v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1095 [at 2996], 2010 TCC 106, aff'd 2011 DTC 5049 [at 5681], 2011 FCA 90
When the taxpayer's brother died, his pension scheme paid her a large lump sum. Boyle J. rejected the taxpayer's position that the payment was in the nature of a life insurance payment rather than an amount from a "superannuation or pension benefit" plan. He found at para.30:
A superannuation or pension fund or plan is an arrangement which provides for payment of regular post-retirement income to employees and determines the entitlement, the amount and frequency of such payments.
The definition of "superannuation or pension benefit" under s. 248(1) includes "any amount received out of or under a superannuation or pension fund or plan." Accordingly, the one-time payment to the taxpayer was an amount from a pension benefit plan, notwithstanding that it was payable because of the contributor's death.
The Queen v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 80 DTC 6333, [1980] CTC 418 (FCA)
The broad definition indicates that a "superannuation or pension benefit" is not restricted to a benefit paid to a beneficiary of a pension plan, and includes a lump-sum payment made by the Canadian trustee of a pension plan to a U.S. trustee of a pension plan upon the transfer of an individual's employment from a Canadian company to its U.S. subsidiary, such payment being equal in amount to the actual liability in respect of the employee at the time of the transfer.
The Queen v. Herman, 78 DTC 6311, [1978] CTC 442 (FCTD)
A pension fund is not limited to one to which contributions are deductible under the Act when made. Pension payments received from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund were fully taxable, notwithstanding that the taxpayer had not been entitled to an income tax deduction for previous contributions to the fund.
See Also
Emond v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1252 [at 3719], 2012 TCC 304
Under the terms of a consent order respecting her separation from her husband, the taxpayer received half of her husband's net monthly retirement annuity. She received part of these payments from her husband, and the balance directly from his pension administrator. In accordance with the consent order's characterization of this arrangement as a "division of marital property," which was supported by the fact that payments were computed on the after-tax annuity amounts to the husband, Lamarre J. found that the payments were not a superannuation or pension benefit to the taxpayer, and therefore she was not required to include them in income, stating (at para. 34) that "an agreement to share income from a source is not a transfer of entitlement to that income."
Ruparel v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1218 [at 3608], 2012 TCC 268
The taxpayer and her husband were UK residents. When they moved to Canada, the taxpayer's husband continued to make voluntary payments to his UK National Insurance plan in order to qualify for his pension under that plan. Webb J. found that all amounts received under the plan should be included in the taxpayer's income, even though there was no corresponding income deduction, and hence double taxation, on the voluntary payments made in Canada. The pension payments were required to be included in income under s. 56(1)(a)(i), and there is no mechanism in the Act that would allow "return of voluntary contributions" to be excluded from income.
Ouellet v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1295 (TCC)
The statutory provision contained in Part VI of the Courts of Justice Act (Quebec) providing a retirement plan for Quebec judges payable out of the consolidated revenue fund of Quebec, qualified as a pension fund or plan for purposes of s. 146(5)(a)(i) of the Act as it applied in the taxpayer's 1989 taxation year.
Abrahamson v. MNR, 91 DTC 213 (TCC)
Shortly after he accepted a position at the University of Guelph, the taxpayer transferred the full amount of his previous contributions to a U.S. pension plan over to an IRA on a tax-free basis. In finding that subsequent withdrawals by the taxpayer from his IRA did not constitute superannuation or pension benefits, Rip TCJ. stated (p. 220):
"The beneficiary of an IRA may have demanded the balance in his IRA at any time; payments out of the IRA were neither fixed, determinable nor paid at any regular intervals as are pension or superannuation benefits."
Administrative Policy
24 September 2014 T.I. 2014-0543091E5 - UK Personal Pension - RRSP
The taxpayer wishes to transfer funds from a personal pension scheme (PPS) in the United Kingdom, which is a self-funded retirement plan, to a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP).
A s. 60(j)(i) transfer is not available as the PPS is not a superannuation or pension plan given the CRA policy that such a plan is one to which "contributions have been made to the plan by or on behalf of an employer of an employee in consideration for services rendered by the employee and the contributions are used to provide the employee with an annuity or a pension on or after the employee's retirement," whereas here only the taxpayer had made contributions.