It may be unclear that an employee incurred an expense such as a hotel bill as agent for the employer. S. 175 provides that if the relevant property or service was acquired “in relation to” the activities of the employer, it is effectively deemed to have incurred the expense in relation to its own activities for input tax credit purposes. A similar rule under s. 175 applies to firms that reimburse their partners, and charities and public institutions that reimburse “volunteers.”

CRA confirmed that the s. 175 rule was unavailable where candidates for a position at a company were reimbursed for their travel and meal expenses by a headhunter, who then included those costs in its bill to the company, so that the company was not entitled to ITCs (unless an agency argument could be made, which was not discussed by CRA).

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 8 March 2018 CBA Commodity Tax Roundtable, Q.8 under ETA s. 175.

CRA indicated that it “is presently considering its position regarding the GST/HST treatment of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.” As it also noted that it had previously taken the position that Bitcoins do not come within the items specifically listed in the ETA definition of “money,” namely currencies and credit instruments or devices such as cheques, promissory notes, letters of credit and bills of exchange or “other similar instrument,” its consideration of whether payment using crypto-currencies is an exempt financial service likely is focusing on whether crypto-currencies are “money” within the undefined meaning of that word.

Neal Armstrong Summary of 8 March 2018 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.7 under ETA s. 123(1) – money.

Brian Hurd found that an incorporated orthodontic practice was making a single supply of exempt orthodontic health services rather than (as argued by it) two supplies comprised of a zero-rated supply of medical equipment (the orthodontic appliance) and of exempt orthodontic services (e.g., adjustment and maintenance services). (Zero-rating would have generated input tax credits.)

CRA has indicated that, as a consequence, it will be withdrawing its current administrative practice – which was to allow orthodontists to treat 35% of most of their taxable expenses as eligible for input tax credits provided that their invoices to their patients broke out a separate charge for the orthodontic device. (A similar practice respecting dental implants also will go.) However, it will provide advance notice of when this practice is being withdrawn so that “stakeholders … can prepare accordingly.”

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 8 March 2018 CBA Commodity Tax Roundtable, Q.5 under Sched. V. Pt. II, s. 5.

Typically, P3 project construction costs for a hospital, bridge etc. are intended for ITA purposes to be viewed as consideration for the grant of a concession or licence (a Class 14 property) by the public authority to the private operating company to enter onto the premises to operate it and earn a monthly operating fee (see e.g., 2006-0218781R3). On the ETA side, CRA instead views the consideration for the incurring of the construction costs as being included in the subsequent monthly amounts payable by the authority. Provided that the amount of such consideration is not yet ascertainable, GST/HST is not triggered (one month after substantial completion) under ETA s. 168(3)(c) on the value of the supply made to the public authority by virtue of the supply of the hospital etc. and is deferred under s. 168(6) until the monthly amounts become ascertainable.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of 8 March 2018 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.4 under ETA s. 168(6).