Delmer E Taylor:—This is an appeal against an income tax assessment in which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed the amount claimed by the taxpayer as registered retirement savings plan premiums for the year 1975. The appellant is a resident of Peachland, British Columbia, and during the year in question placed $1450 in the plan, representing approximately 20% of the income noted on a T4A Slip. That T4A slip reads as follows in its essential elements:
PAYEE:
WARRENDORF, E M
C/O DR J KITSON.
SUMMERLAND RESEARCH STATION
AGRICULTURE CANADA,
SUMMERLAND, BC
ISSUED BY:
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL DIVISION
DIVISION CONSEIL NATIONAL DE RECHERCHES
OTTAWA, K1A 0R6
OTHER INCOME (Box H) $7,249.99
INCOME TAX DEDUCTED (Box I) $1,362.50
PDF STIPEND — BOURSES DE RECHERCHES POST-DOCTORALES (NRC)
The notice of appeal reads in part as follows:
1) I paid income tax on my “income" at the same rate as any other taxpayer and therefore I should have the right, as a taxpayer. to put money into a RRSP.
2) If my fellowship is not considered an “income" then I should have the “income tax" paid on those monies refunded.
3) When fellowships became subject to income tax in the late 1960’s it was, in my opinion, an oversight that fellowships did not become listed with the “earned incomes’’ of paragraph 146(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. I do not think it fair to be penalized for an oversight.
It is further noted that the appellant also indicated on the notice of objection (filed with the Department on. July 19, 1976, and rejected) that:
. . . having already paid taxes on the money not allowed as a RRSP deduction and being subject to taxation of the money that was put into the plan when I take the money out of the RRSP that I contracted for this year.
The respondent contended that:
the appellant’s principal, source of income for the year under appeal (save and except the amount of $687.24, interest and investment income) was a post-doctoral fellowship which is classified as “Other Income" under the Act; is made taxable to the extent to which it exceeds $500: and is not included in the definition of “earned income" in the Act.
It is understandable that the appellant is somewhat concerned since her work (as described to the Board) was similar to that of an employee. Nevertheless it is certain that the appellant was not an employee of the National Research Council, the very fact that the record of the income was provided on a T4A slip denotes that, and indeed it is specified thereon as other income. The amount in question does not qualify as “earned income’’ for purposes of the deduction claimed.
Dealing with the three points raised in the notice of appeal, the Board notes for the record that she did not pay tax on the income at the same rate as any other taxpayer—she was allowed a tax free portion of $500; she should not be entitled to a refund of the income tax paid—because that would constitute a basis for taxing only income considered as earned, rather than all income-^ including fellowships, grants, etc; and while it may be considered an oversight by the appellant that the amount in question is not “earned income” for income tax purposes, it is that way in the Act, and the Board is not empowered to make any change.
Turning to the comment contained in the notice of objection regarding possible, even probable double taxation, again the Board can only note the reference but cannot deal with it. There is no question that the taxpayer intended to open up a registered retirement savings plan, and did so. The contribution therefore is locked into the plan whether or not the tax relief sought becomes a reality.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.