In a recent ruling, the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada clarified the application of section 160 of the Income Tax Act regarding surviving spouses and property transfers following a partner’s death. The decision in Marlene Enns v. His Majesty the King overturned a previous tax assessment issued against Marlene Enns by the Minister of National Revenue. This case sheds important light on the interpretation of the term “spouse” under the Income Tax Act and its implications for surviving spouses.
Background of the Case
At the heart of this case was the transfer of a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) following the death of Peter Enns, Marlene’s spouse. Peter had named Marlene as the sole beneficiary of his RRSP, which was valued at $102,789.52 when he passed away in 2013. However, Peter had an outstanding tax liability that exceeded the value of the RRSP. Under section 160 of the Income Tax Act, the Minister can assess a transferee for the unpaid tax debt of a transferor if the property is transferred for less than its fair market value.
The key legal question in the case was whether Marlene, as the designated beneficiary of the RRSP, was still considered Peter’s “spouse” for the purposes of section 160 after his death. The Tax Court of Canada had upheld the assessment, referencing the earlier case Kuchta v. The Queen, which had ruled that a person remains a “spouse” under section 160 even after their partner’s death.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s Decision
In a significant shift, the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with the Tax Court’s decision and ruled in favor of Marlene Enns. The court’s judgment focused on whether a surviving spouse should continue to be treated as a “spouse” under the Income Tax Act following the death of their partner.
The court first addressed the meaning of the term “spouse” in the Income Tax Act. Since the term is not explicitly defined in the Act, the court employed a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis, referencing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in as Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada
In analyzing the text, the court noted that dictionaries define “spouse” as a “married person” and emphasized that one typically ceases to be a “spouse” upon the death of the other partner. This conclusion aligns with the decision in Rahimi v. Canada case, where the Federal Court ruled that marriage ends upon the death of a spouse, in line with the traditional vows of marriage (“until death do us part”).
The Federal Court of Appeal further noted that the Tax Court in Kuchta had incorrectly considered the colloquial use of the term “spouse” in informal contexts, such as obituaries, which is not relevant when interpreting the term in the statutory context of the Income Tax Act. The court clarified that a surviving spouse no longer retains that status after death and referenced the statutory definition of “common-law partner” in subsection 248(1) of the Act. According to this subsection, a common-law partnership ends upon the death of one partner. The Tax Court had incorrectly relied on a broader interpretation of “common-law partner,” which implied the partnership could continue posthumously. The Federal Court of Appeal corrected this view, reaffirming that, like marriage, a common-law partnership terminates upon the death of one partner, and the surviving partner ceases to be a “common-law partner” thereafter. This interpretation ensures consistency in the treatment of common-law partners and married couples, both of whom cease to be considered “spouses” upon the death of the other partner.
The Federal Court of Appeal also addressed the specific tax implications of transferring RRSPs to a designated beneficiary upon the death of the annuitant. Unlike property that becomes part of the deceased’s estate, RRSPs pass directly to the beneficiary, bypassing the estate and its obligations. Therefore, Marlene, as the designated beneficiary, was not responsible for Peter’s tax debt concerning the RRSP transfer.
The Federal Court of Appeal vacated the tax assessment against Marlene Enns and awarded her costs for both the Tax Court proceedings and the appeal. This ruling clarifies the application of section 160 of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding surviving spouses and the transfer of assets upon the death of a partner.
Conclusion
The decision affirms that, for the purposes of section 160, a surviving spouse is no longer considered a “spouse” after the death of their partner. This ruling sets an important precedent for future cases involving the interpretation of “spouse” in tax law and provides much-needed clarity for surviving spouses and common-law partners in relation to property transfers after the death of their spouse.
Thanks for reading!
.