In 2013, the taxpayer’s spouse made a $13,142 contribution that was (the taxpayer claimed) intended to pay off her home buyers’ plan (HBP) balance. However, the RBC branch treated that amount as a contribution by her to the RRSP of the taxpayer (who had also made his contribution for the year to that RRSP). In June 2021, CRA assessed the taxpayer for excess contribution tax under s. 204.1(1). The taxpayer claimed that it was only from a December 2020 phone call with CRA that he learned that CRA considered that he had made an excess contribution in 2012.
In July 2021, the taxpayer requested a waiver of the tax under s. 204.1(4).
Before remitting the adverse decision of the CRA review officer for decision by another officer, Southcott J noted that the CRA position - that the taxpayer had not made a reasonable error (the first element of s. 204.1(4)) given that the taxpayer was notified of his contribution on a sufficiently timely basis that he could have gone back to RBC to correct its reporting of the contribution while it still had sufficient records of the transaction – was not supported by the record, which did not establish that CRA had notified the taxpayer of his alleged over-contribution in 2013 before December 2020.
Regarding the second element of s. 204.1(4), namely, the requirement for the taxpayer to have taken reasonable steps to eliminate his excess contribution, Southcott J stated (at para. 43):
[T]he Applicant submits that he should not be expected to make an RRSP withdrawal to correct an over-contribution situation that would not exist if the Minister accepted his position that the $13,142 contribution made in 2013 should not be attributed to him. This argument raises what I consider to be a valid point that what constitutes reasonable steps, under the second element of the s 204.1(4) test, may in some circumstances be influenced by the particular facts surrounding the excess contribution for which a tax waiver is sought. In the case at hand, the Delegate’s unreasonable analysis under the first element of the test precluded the possibility of the Delegate accepting the Applicant’s characterization of the 2013 contribution and considering what, if anything, would be required as reasonable remedial steps in the context of that characterization.