Kiperchuk v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1088 [at at 486], 2013 TCC 60 -- summary under Subsection 160(1)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer was the designated beneficiary of her husband's RRSP, and received the RRSP proceeds upon his death, and was assessed for his unpaid taxes under s. 160. Lamarre J found that the taxpayer and her husband were not related persons under s. 251(1)(a) at the time of transfer because their marriage was dissolved on the husband's death, so that at the time of transfer they were not related by marriage under s. 251(2)(a). The taxpayer and her husband also were not related under s. 251(1)(b), because the RRSP devolved to the taxpayer directly by operation of Ontario's Succession Law Reform Act, rather than forming part of the husband's estate.

In response to a submission of the Crown that the taxpayer was factually not at arm's length with her deceased husband because the relevant time was that at which she was designated as his RRSP's beneficiary, Lamarre J stated (at para. 29) that there was nothing in the wording of s. 160(1):

that relates the relationship between the transferor and the transferee to any moment other than that of the transfer of the property (or a moment after the transfer in a case where the transferee has since become the transferor's spouse. The subsection refers throughout to the act of transferring and the time of the transfer, without specifying that other moments in time, previous to the transfer, could be contemplated for the purpose of its application to the transferee.

As the transfer to the taxpayer at arm's length, s. 160(1) did not apply.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334742
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Kiperchuk v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2013 DTC 1088 [at 486], 2013 TCC 60",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}