Canadian Views/Attitudes Towards the Sharing of Tax Information - Qualitative Phase

Prepared for the:
Public Affairs Branch
Canada Revenue Agency
FINAL REPORT
March 2008
POR# 402-07
Contract #46558-098981

Prepared by:
Corporate Research Associates

Le rapport complet en français sera fourni sur demande.

To request a full copy of this report, please contact Library and Archives Canada at:
613-996-5115 or 1-866-578-7777 or www.collectionscanada.ca

Media Enquiries:
Media Relations
Canada Revenue Agency
4th Floor 555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Executive Summary

Corporate Research Associates Inc. conducted research on behalf of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), on taxpayers' views on the matter of sharing of personal information. The study first included a qualitative phase that will be followed by quantitative research. This first phase of the study (qualitative) aimed to explore the extent to which people think it is acceptable to disclose or use taxpayer information for purposes other than tax administration; the extent to which people think it is appropriate for the CRA to gather information about citizens from other government sources to ensure compliance with tax law; and the nature of age and regional differences as well as differences of opinion of urban Canadians versus those living in smaller centres. The research also aimed at directing the development of quantitative research instruments that will be used to measure Canadian residents' attitudes on the sharing of tax information in a follow-up phase.

For the qualitative phase of the study, Corporate Research Associates Inc. conducted 10 focus groups in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, in addition to a total of 15 teleconference group discussions with rural residents in five regions across Canada. Taxpayers 18 years or older were invited to participate. The fieldwork was conducted from March 3 to 17, 2008. The focus group and teleconference focus discussion techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. Due to the inherent biases in the techniques, the data should not be projected to any universe of individuals.

Findings from the qualitative phase of the study suggest that there is general support for the CRA to exchange taxpayer information with other federal departments and with provincial governments for the purpose of applying both tax-related and non-tax laws as well as for program and service planning. There is a perception that the Government of Canada in general and the Canada Revenue Agency in particular possess a large quantity of personal information on Canadians. The level of acceptance with information sharing differs based on the type of information shared as well as the purpose.

While there is clear approval for the exchange of aggregate information on Canadians for statistical and program-planning purposes, support is less evident as it relates to sharing information linked to an individual's name. This information is considered private and to be handled with much care for fear of identity theft or misuse. Nonetheless, there is still wide support for private personal information to be exchanged within government for the purpose of identifying and prosecuting unlawful citizens as well as updating the CRA taxpayer and benefit recipient database. Citizens are generally opposed to information circulating from governments to private sector organizations.
Advantages associated with taxpayer information being available within the federal government and between federal and provincial governments are generally deemed as outweighing the risks or disadvantages. The practice is viewed as primarily providing time and cost efficiencies, allowing governments to inform individuals of benefit eligibility, preventing fraud and identifying criminal and terrorist activity, facilitating the update of information, and ensuring that governments are working in a cohesive and coherent manner especially when planning for the future.

In contrast, identity theft and misuse of information are deemed the greatest risks of information sharing. While taxpayers trust the government and public servants, they recognize the risk of mistakes being made as well as the potential for dishonest employees. This is further highlighted by the uncertainty regarding consistency, or lack thereof, in privacy legislation among public sector organizations. Throughout the discussion, few conclusive differences of opinions were noted between participants 18 to 39 years old and those 40 years and over, other than for some perceived risks and disadvantages of information sharing. Indeed, younger participants were more concerned with the prospect of identity theft and with the possibility of information being used unfairly when assessing program applications.

Seven scenarios were presented in the group discussions, each describing a situation when information sharing between the CRA and other government organizations could be valuable. The situations do not necessarily represent scenarios the CRA may pursue, and may or may not already be authorized under law or programs that are already in effect. They were chosen to represent a broad range of possible information sharing programs. Opinions were more cautious when discussing the general topic of information sharing than when discussing specific scenarios, suggesting that knowing the type of information being circulated, the destination, and the intended use may help increase support. Obtaining taxpayers' consent in most of those cases, other than those involving criminal activities, was deemed necessary.

In general as it relates to the scenarios discussed, taxpayers approve of the CRA obtaining content of birth, death, and marriage certificates issued by the provinces, to update its own taxpayer and benefit recipient database. Similarly, it is felt that the CRA should use its own database to find updated contact information of debtors who owe money to the governments. Use of financial and employment situation must be done with care though, as a means to negotiate repayment schedules rather than coerce or force the debtor to pay their debts.

There is also support for the cross-verification of social assistance applicant information, though it was felt that consent should be required. It is unclear if this should be done by implied or stated consent when filling out the application form. In another instance, there is consensus that governments should be more proactive in informing citizens of benefits they may be eligible for. That said, opinions differed as to whether the CRA should contact the taxpayers directly with an invitation to find out more regarding eligibility or share taxpayers' information with other government organizations.

Participants shared mixed views on the idea of identifying and communicating documents indicative of criminal, fraudulent and terrorist activities uncovered during a tax investigation, though they all agree with the importance of prosecuting such behaviours. There is a fear that the CRA tax investigators are ill-equipped to perform this work, that it may divert their attention from their regular responsibilities, and that it may in some cases lead to "witch hunts" or "fishing expeditions". Mixed opinions were also expressed with whether or not the CRA should work with provincial health authorities to identify those who use healthcare services in one province while filing a tax return in another province. Concerns were raised with the number of exceptions that may apply, as well as the validity in prosecuting someone who is paying provincial taxes, despite being in a different province than where the services are used.

Overall, a measure of public opinion on this issue is required via the quantitative study. In designing research instruments for this follow-up phase, consideration should be given to the following aspects, among other things:

• Acceptance levels should be assessed based on the type of information exchanged (private vs. public), the parties involved (federal, provincial, municipal, or private sector) and the intended use.
  
  
• An assessment should be made to understand if the perceived amount of information known by governments influences levels of acceptance.
  
  
• When presenting scenarios, questions should provide complete background information, including details of the current legislation and listing the exceptions that may apply.
  
  
• The requirement for implied or written consent as part of the sharing of information should be explored based on different situations.
  
  
• The advantages associated with the different scenarios for sharing of information should be stated and questions asked to understand if they are compelling.
  
  
• Opinions on information sharing based on the seriousness of the crime/offense should be assessed.

Date modified:

2008-12-20