9 June 1994 Internal T.I. 9408716 - COMMENTS ON VERSION 6 OF IT-519R, MEDICL EXPENSES

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.

Principal Issues:

review of IT-519R (version 6)

Position TAKEN:

5 comments given

Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN:

not applicable

		June 9, 1994

	Technical Publications Division	Rulings Directorate
	Roy C. Shultis	A. Humenuk
	Director	957-8953

	Attention: Ron Lefebvre
		940871

Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R, Version 6 (P-1718)

We are replying to your memorandum dated April 5, 1994 concerning the draft revisions to the above noted bulletin. Our comments are as follows:

A review of our correspondence indicates that the Canadian Institute of Occupational Therapists is the only association in addition to those already noted in the draft bulletin which has made representation to us concerning the status of their members; other enquiries on the subject of medical practitioners were made by individual practitioners related to nutritionists, dieticians, acupuncturists, social workers, family therapists, marital and guidance counsellors.

We offered the opinion that occupational therapists practising in Alberta and Ontario, acupuncturists practising in Quebec and dieticians (but not nutritionists) practising in Ontario would qualify as medical practitioners. We based our opinion on the fact that the aforementioned provinces have health-related legislation authorizing such individuals to practice their respective health discipline. A cursory review of other provincial legislation did not reveal similar authorization to practice as a medical practitioner and thus our opinion on each of the aforementioned occupations was restricted to the province so named.

Paragraph 10 states that an individual cannot include a dependant's medical expenses in the calculation of the medical expense tax credit claim for a taxation year prior to 1993 unless the individual was also entitled to claim a personal tax credit for that dependant in that same year. In addition to your comments concerning the dependant's net income, it is significant to note that for the taxation years 1988 to 1992 inclusive this requirement prevented an individual from claiming medical expenses in respect of any dependant over the age of 18 except where that person was dependent on the individual because of a mental or physical infirmity. Since the comments in the bulletin are intended to be applicable for 1992 as well as subsequent years, we should clarify that a medical expense incurred on behalf of a child over the age of 18 who was not physically or mentally infirm did not qualify as an eligible medical expense for the 1992 taxation year regardless of the child's level of income.

Paragraphs 20 and 21 are based on the premise that no part of the cost of full time attendant care can be considered an eligible medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1) of the Act. We disagree. While the Technical Notes to Bill C-18 state that the purpose of the new provision was to provide a credit in respect of remuneration paid for part-time attendant care, the wording of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1) of the Act does not preclude an individual from choosing to claim a portion of the amount paid for full time attendant care under paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1) (provided the amount paid for attendant care otherwise so qualified) in order to claim the disability tax credit as well and to forgo any claim under paragraph 118.2(2)(b).

With respect to the comment in paragraph 24 that a patient suffering from an addiction to drugs may qualify to claim medical expenses under paragraph 118.2(2)(e) of the Act, please note that we have taken the position that fees paid to quit smoking would not ordinarily qualify for the credit. As noted in the attached correspondence, the Department of Finance is in agreement with this view. Given the multiplicity and variety of programs available to assist an individual's attempt to quit smoking, it would be helpful if the bulletin set out the circumstances under which such fees would qualify as a medical expense. We also note that the care and training described in paragraph 118.2(2)(e) can be provided on an out-patient basis as well as in an institutional setting.

We note that you use the word "detoxication" in paragraph 24 and 25; we understand that "detoxification" is the more commmonly used term to describe such a clinic.

R.S. Biscaro
Acting Director General
Rulings Directorate
Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs Branch