16 January 1995 Ministerial Letter 9433438 - INDIAN ACT EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYMENT INCOME

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:

Whether the consultations in developing the Indian Act Exemption for Employment Income Guidelines were adequate.

Position TAKEN:

Yes.

Reasons FOR POSITION TAKEN:

Over 250 written submissions were considered.

ADM'S OFFICE (3)

RETURN TO RULINGS, ROOM 303, MET. BLDG.

AUTHOR
SUBJECT OR CORPORATE FILE

January 16, 1995

XXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

The Honourable David Anderson, Minister of National Revenue, has asked me to reply to your letter of December 5, 1994, concerning the tax exemption provided by section 87 of the Indian Act. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You expressed concern about the Government's interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Williams case and the lack of consultations with Aboriginal people in formulating guidelines based on that decision. You would like the Department to review its Indian Act Exemption for Employment Income Guidelines.

Commencing in the summer of 1993, departmental officials did undertake an extensive series of meetings with Aboriginal political organizations and tribal councils, consultants and contractors, tax practitioners and other affected individuals. In addition, we received over 250 written submissions. Based on this input and a thorough analysis of the case, guidelines were drafted and distributed in December of 1993 to interested parties. More submissions were received and these were given serious consideration before the final guidelines were issued in June of 1994.

Throughout the process, the submissions helped us to understand the perspective of others and the consultations provided for an exchange of ideas. The guidelines were revised a number of times as a result of this input and I believe that the final version of the guidelines is better and clearer than it otherwise would have been. Significant work has been carried out by departmental officials and I believe the guidelines apply the Williams decision in a fair and liberal manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

I trust that these comments will be of assistance.

		Yours sincerely,
		Pierre Gravelle, Q.C.

J.D. Brooks
957-2103
January 16, 1995
YS# 94-12975