1 May 1991 Administrative Letter 910596 F - Wage Loss Replacement Plans - IT-428

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.

19(1)

Re:  Wage Loss Replacement Plans IT-428

We are writing in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, wherein you requested our views as to whether there would be adverse income tax implications for an "Employee Pay-all Long Term Disability Plan" (LTD plan) in the situation described in your letter.

Our understanding of the situation set out in your letter and clarified during our telephone conversation of April 10,1991, is as follows.

24(1)

With respect to the pension fund contributions, redirected through the  24(1) of the pension plan, you have analysed the possible income tax consequences for employer pay-all and employee pay-all wage loss replacement plans if the employer 24(1) were to self-fund these pension plan contributions.

1.     Employer pay-all plan.

Since the LTD plan premium with the insurance carrier would include a charge to cover the potential pension fund contributions, if the employer  24(1) were to undertake to fund this contingent payment, the 24(1) premium would be reduced on an annual basis.  Because the payment of the plan premiums by the employer does not create a taxable benefit to the employees and since the LTD benefits are taxable in the hands of the recipients, this arrangement would, in your view, have no adverse income tax implications for the employees.

2.     Employee Day-all plan

Similarly, should  24(1)  be able to negotiate self-funding of the pension plan payment with the various   24(1)  such that the premiums paid by  24(1)   to the insurance carrier would be similarly reduced, it is your view that the immediate reduction of the premium, created by the  24(1) acceptance of the contingent pension plan contribution, would not taint the employee pay-all plan.

Our Comments

We have reviewed your submission in conjunction with the guidelines set out in IT-428.  As a consequence it is our opinion that, based on the assumption that the contractual requirement to pay the pension contribution would no longer rest with the insurance carrier, your analysis of the income tax consequences of these two hypothetical situations is essentially correct.

We would caution that the above comments are based on the limited information set out in your letter, and as such, are not binding on the Department.

We trust that these comments are of assistance to you.

Yours truly,

for DirectorBusiness and General DivisionRulings DirectorateLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch