11 May 1993 Income Tax Severed Letter 9306957 - Indians and Treaties

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.

                                      May 11, 1993

  EDMONTON DISTRICT OFFICE            Business and General 
  E.J. Schermann, Chief of Audit       Division
                                      Glen Thornley
  Attention: Ron Quinn, Chief         (613) 957-2101
             Public Affairs

                                      930695
  Status Indians and Reserves

This is in reply to your facsimile of March 9, 1993 with enclosed letter from XXXXXXXXXX requests exempt status based on the presumption that Treaty #8 exempts status Indians from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

As discussed with you over the telephone (Thornley/Quinn) on
March 15, 1993, Indian settlements are not reserves. It is
"the personal property of an Indian or band situated on a
reserve" that is exempt under the Indian Act and under
paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, thus, 
                          XXXXXXXXXX
and not on a reserve, her income is taxable.

We only recognize reserves that have been set up by an "Order in Council" or in the case of some very old reserves, in some other formal manner. For confirmation we refer to a "Schedule of Indian Bands, Reserves and Settlements" produced by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or if there is some doubt we contact Indian and Northern Affairs directly. Under the Indian and Bands in Certain Settlements Remission Order of May 14, 1992, twelve settlements have been allowed reserve-like treatment because their tentative reserve boundaries have been established. As we discussed, the Resolution Settlement is not covered under the May 14, 1992 Remission Order.

In closing, it is noted that the arguments raised in XXXXXXXXXX letter dealing with Treaty #8 are quite compelling, however, the issues raised should more properly be referred to Indian and Northern Affairs who have responsibility in these matters.

As you have undertaken to convey the foregoing information to XXXXXXXXXX we are closing our file on the matter.

R. Albert for Director Business and General Division Rulings Directorate Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch

c.c. Rick Owen