Leslie, it is obvious you don't understand the spreadsheet you are using. First of all,

The spreadsheet is correct.

And the sky is green. I've shown you exactly where the calculations and cells are wrong (well, where they are wrong in the important part, the way it calculates the contribution is also wrong, the creator made it 44% of the total contribution, but it is not, the refund is 44% of the original contribution).

Your argument about how to allocate it is stupid. It is exactly the same as if I told you I have two jobs, one that pays $70,000, and one that pays $30,000. I pay $50,000 in taxes, therefore the second job I am paying 100% taxes on and the first I am paying 28% taxes on. Therefore, using your logic, just like I shouldn't use the RRSP, I shouldn't bother working my second job. The reality is that taxes are applied uniformly on my income, NOT on which job it was, and likewise, the tax on withdrawals from your RRSP is applied UNIFORMLY on your withdrawals, regardless of whether the money originally came from the original contribution or the contribution resulting from the refund.

You are also failing to understand the spreadsheet, the point of it is not to

show the allocation of that total tax, to clarify WHAT exactly was being taxed, to allow people to understand the system.

, the point of that section of the spreadsheet is to allow you to understand how much money you will wind up with after you have let it grow then withdrawn it. What this spreadsheet is telling you is that IF your tax rate is 44%, you make 8% return on your investments, you put $1000 (the sum of your contribution and the refund) into your RRSP, then at the end, when you withdraw it, you will have $12,166. If you correct the broken cell, it will also point out that you have an after tax rate of return of 6.4% on your original contribution, and an effective tax rate of 19.4%. If we did NOT put this money into the RRSP, we would have started with 540, and had it grown by (8% * (1-44%)) over 40 years... or 540*(1.0448^40) = 3116.88. So by putting the money into an RRSP, we have gained 12,166-3,116.88, or about $9,050. THIS is what the spreadsheet is showing you.

THAT is the key error of what you are doing wrong. While arguing that because of this error, the refund gives you $0 so you shouldn't do it, you are forgetting that this SAME error shows you that the RRSP grows 100% tax free and there is no tax on withdrawal. So since you don't seem to understand that point and have some massive mental block, just make everyone happy and just talk about the totals.

Here's a last, simple bit of proof that even you should be able to understand. On a T4RSP form (you know, the form you get when you withdraw money from your RRSP)... show me where it is indicated whether the funds come from your original contribution or your refund so the government knows whether to charge you 100% tax or 0% tax.

But don't worry, I won't hold my breath....

PS: You also say quite often that TFSA = RRSP. But the reality is that TFSA ONLY equals the RRSP when both the original contribution AND the refund are contributed to the RRSP, otherwise they do not equal. Do the math yourself, it's pretty simple... in fact, here's the formulas assuming 10% return, 50% tax rate, 30 years until ending and a $20,000 contribution.

TFSA = 20,000 * (1.10 ^ 30)

RRSP with refund thrown in = (20,000+10,000) * (1.10 ^ 30) * 50%

RRSP without refund = 20,000 * (1.10 ^ 30) * 50%

I'll let you do the math, maybe you'll learn something. Now... how can the TFSA only equal the RRSP if the refund is included if the refund is worth $0? If it can't, there's even more proof that your hypothesis is WRONG.