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.
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
MINISTER/DEPUTY MINISTER'S OFFICE 95-02603M
ADM'S OFFICE
RETURN TO 15TH FLOOR, ALBION TOWER
November 30, 1995
XXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXX:
I am writing in response to your letter of March 22, 1995, XXXXXXXXXX further to your earlier enquiry concerning the validity of the requirement for the payment of a deposit from persons seeking an advance income tax ruling. You referred to your files
XXXXXXXXXX.
You will perhaps recall that I had asked departmental officials to review this matter and the position previously taken by the Department.
The Department continues to be of the view that the requirement for a deposit that will be applied to the cost of an advance income tax ruling is a sound business practice and is advantageous to our clients as well as to the Department. This partial payment of the total fee is an integral part of the administration of this fee-for-service program. The practice of charging a fee is authorized and the timing of the collection of the fee is part of the same authorization. The authority to prescribe when the fee is payable is intrinsic to the authority to prescribe a fee. From a legal perspective, the Department is not exceeding its authority and I would add it has no desire to do so.
The Department is not aware of any complaints from requesters of rulings about the requirement for a partial prepayment or deposit. The deposit is in reality a partial payment of the fee for the ruling. You have described a hypothetical situation of a ruling being issued with a charge of less than five hours as an example of why the amount should be considered as a deposit. However, a review of departmental records indicates that substantially all advance rulings issued involved a billing to the client for an amount in excess of the deposit.
As there are very good policy reasons for the present financial procedure on requests for advance income tax rulings and the Department believes the procedure is authorized, I am sure that you will understand the reluctance to remove a requirement that has been in place for over 20 years.
I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention and trust we can now consider the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
David Anderson, P.C., M.P.
Bryan Dath
957-2089
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to electronically copy and to print in hard copy for internal use only. No part of this information may be reproduced, modified, transmitted or redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system for any purpose other than noted above (including sales), without prior written permission of Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 1995
Tous droits réservés. Il est permis de copier sous forme électronique ou d'imprimer pour un usage interne seulement. Toutefois, il est interdit de reproduire, de modifier, de transmettre ou de redistributer de l'information, sous quelque forme ou par quelque moyen que ce soit, de facon électronique, méchanique, photocopies ou autre, ou par stockage dans des systèmes d'extraction ou pour tout usage autre que ceux susmentionnés (incluant pour fin commerciale), sans l'autorisation écrite préalable de l'Agence du revenu du Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5.
© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 1995
Email this Content