25 January 2010 External T.I. 2009-0337771E5 - Whether a "podologue" is a medical practitioner

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.

Principal Issues: Whether a podologue practising in Quebec is a medical practitioner within the meaning of subsection 118.4(2).

Position: Question of fact, having regard to Quebec legislation and whether a "podologue" is authorized to practise in Quebec. Authorized to practise means that there must be specific legislation that enables, permits or empowers a person to perform medical services.

Reasons: Direct interpretation of subsection 118.4(2).

XXXXXXXXXX 							2009-033777
J. Gibbons, CGA
January 25, 2010

Dear XXXXXXXXXX

Re: Whether a "Podologue" in Quebec is a "Medical Practitioner"

This is in reply to your letter dated August 21, 2009, concerning the above noted issue.

You have asked whether a podologue is considered to be a "medical practitioner" for purposes of the medical expense tax credit. In your view, the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in The Queen v. Couture, 2009 DTC 5040, concerning the expression "authorized to practice" in the definition of "medical practitioner" in subsection 118.4(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"), likely means that a Quebec "podologue" (a French term that you translate as "chiropodist") would not qualify under this expression.

Our comments

Written confirmation of the tax implications inherent in particular transactions is given by this Directorate only where the transactions are proposed and are the subject matter of an advance income tax ruling request submitted in the manner set out in Information Circular 70-6R5, Advance Income Tax Rulings, dated May 17, 2002. Nonetheless, we are able to provide you with the following general comments.

In Couture, The Federal Court of Appeal had to address the issue of whether amounts paid for acupuncture services in Ontario qualified under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act. We agree with the Federal Court of Appeals findings in this case that "authorized to practise" in subsection 118.4(2) of the Act was not "synonymous with permitted to practise or not prohibited from practicing," but rather "required some formality or formal recognition of the particular service as a discipline that is legally countenanced under Ontario law."

In our view, a person is authorized by the laws of the jurisdiction to act as a medical practitioner if there is specific legislation that enables, permits or empowers a person to perform medical services. Generally, such specific legislation would provide for the licensing or certification of the practitioner as well as for the establishment of a governing body (e.g., a college or board) with the authority to determine competency, enforce discipline and set basic standards of conduct.

The issue of whether a "podologue" practising in Quebec would be considered a medical practitioner is a question of fact having regard to Quebec law. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, a "podologue" would not be considered "authorized to practice" in the province of Quebec.

We trust these comments will be of assistance.

Yours truly,

G. Moore
for Director
Business and Partnerships Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate
Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch