2 June 2026 STEP Roundtable Q. 11, 2026-1088421C6 - Tax ID Numbers

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.

Principal Issues: (1) Whether the collecting person in the scenario described can be considered to have made "reasonable effort" under 237(2); (2) Meaning of "written consent" under subsection 239(2.3).

Position: (1) Question of fact, but likely yes; (2) Question of fact, but generally express consent that is documented in writing.

Reasons: (1) Although it is a question of fact as to what constitutes "reasonable effort" under subsection 237(2), the actions described in the scenario are consistent with our published position; (2) Based on the definition of "written" under the Interpretation Act, jurisprudence on the meaning of "written agreement", and the principles set out in Canadian privacy laws.

2026 STEP CRA Roundtable – June 2, 2026

QUESTION 11. Tax ID Numbers

Part 1.

Subsection 237(1.1) requires a person (the “disclosing person”) to provide its tax identification number to another person (the “collecting person”) where the collecting person is required to make an information return under the Act or Regulations. Subsection 237(2) further requires the collecting person to make a “reasonable effort” to obtain the number. Failure to do so may result in the collecting person being subject to penalties, such as under subsection 162(5) for failing to provide information on a prescribed form, or under subsections 162(7) and potentially subsection 163(5) for failing to report beneficiary information on Schedule 15 of a T3 Return.

Can the CRA clarify what constitutes “reasonable effort” in this context? Specifically, if the disclosing person does not respond to repeated communications by email or mail to the last known contact information, would continuing to send notices to that address or email suffice? Or does CRA expect additional steps beyond repeated attempts to the last known contact?

Part 2.

Subsection 239(2.3) provides that it is an offence to knowingly use, communicate (or permit another to use or communicate) a tax identification number other than for a purpose required under the Act and Regulations, or otherwise by law, without the “written consent” of the disclosing person.

Can the CRA comment on what satisfies the requirement for “written consent” under subsection 239(2.3)?

CRA Response

Part 1.

Paragraph 237(2)(a) imposes an obligation on the collecting person required to make an information return pursuant to the Act or the Regulations requiring a tax identification number (i.e., business number, Social Insurance Number (SIN), or trust account number, as the case may be) of the disclosing person to make a reasonable effort to obtain the number from the disclosing person.

Whether a collecting person has made a “reasonable effort” to obtain a tax identification number for the purposes of paragraph 237(2)(a) is a question of fact. However, we offer the following comments that may be of assistance.

In our view, a collecting person will generally have made a reasonable effort where they have taken bona fide steps to request the number using the contact information reasonably available to them, and have maintained adequate records of those efforts, as stated in paragraphs 5, 10 and 11 of IC82-2R2 Social Insurance Number Legislation that Relates to the Preparation of Information Slips:

5. Information slip preparers have to ask their clients to give their SIN and other personal data, such as their name and address. This request can take any form that is practical for the preparers.

10. Information slip preparers should keep any documents they need to prove they made a reasonable effort to get their clients’ SIN. For example, when they send a request by mail, the preparers should keep a record of the date of the request, an example of the request form, and the names of the people contacted (e.g., shareholders of record at the date of the request, members of a co-operative or holders of deposit accounts).

11. If clients do not respond to a SIN request, information slip preparers should not delay filing the information returns after they are due. If their clients’ SIN are not available, information slip preparers should leave the SIN area of the slip blank.

In addition, an example of reasonable effort in the context of paragraph 237(2)(a) can be found on our webpage Get the social insurance number (SIN) from the individual:

After asking the recipient for their SIN many times, you decided to contact them in writing to request their SIN. You made notes of the dates you asked for the SIN verbally, and kept copies of any written requests.

The actions suggested in your question would generally be consistent with what CRA considers to be “reasonable effort”, provided that the collecting person has maintained adequate records of their efforts. However, what is reasonable in any situation can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, if mail sent to a disclosing person’s last known address is returned undelivered, continuing to send mail only to that same address may not, by itself, be considered “reasonable effort”, when the collecting person has other means of contacting the disclosing person (such as a phone number or an email address) that were left unused.

Part 2.

In general terms, it is an offence under subsection 239(2.3) for the collecting person to knowingly use or communicate the tax identification number (i.e., business number, SIN, and trust account number, as the case may be) of the disclosing person, or allow it to be communicated, without the written consent of the disclosing person, otherwise than for authorized purposes, as follows:

• as required or authorized by law;
• in the course of duties in connection with the administration or enforcement of the Act; or
• for a purpose for which it was provided by the disclosing person.

Accordingly, if a collecting person intends to use the tax identification number for a purpose other than one of the authorized purposes provided under subsection 239(2.3), “written consent” for the intended use must be obtained from the disclosing person to avoid the offence under this subsection.

Whether a collecting person has obtained “written consent” in the context of subsection 239(2.3) is a question of fact. However, we offer the following comments that may be of assistance.

Meaning of “written”

Subsection 35(1) of the Interpretation Act defines the term “writing” for every enactment, as follows:

writing, or any term of like import, includes words printed, typewritten, painted, engraved, lithographed, photographed or represented or reproduced by any mode of representing or reproducing words in visible form.?(écrit)

In Foley v. The Queen (footnote 1), the Tax Court of Canada commented that the word “writing”, as defined in the Interpretation Act, includes electronic mail, and that an exchange of e-mail communication between parties can constitute a “written agreement”.

In light of the foregoing, we are of the view that “written consent” must be documented in writing, whether on paper, in an electronic record, or in other forms that represent or reproduce words in visible form. On that basis, verbal or implied consent through conduct would not be considered “written consent”.

Meaning of “consent”

In considering the meaning of “consent”, we also looked to privacy-law principles and related guidance that, while not determinative for subsection 239(2.3), support the view that consent should be clear, specific and affirmative, particularly given the sensitivity of tax identification numbers.

Based on these considerations, we are of the view that an express, opt-in consent would generally provide the clearest evidence that written consent was obtained for the purposes of subsection 239(2.3).

Whether the “written consent” requirement in the context of subsection 239(2.3) is met ultimately depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, CRA will generally consider the requirement to be met where the disclosing person affirmatively checks an unticked-by-default checkbox, separate from or clearly distinguished from general terms and conditions, using clear and specific language describing the particular use or communication of the tax identification number in question.

Kate Li
2026-108842

Response for Part 1 prepared in collaboration with:

Nicolae Oanea
Employer Compliance Division, Business Compliance Directorate
Collections and Verification Branch

FOOTNOTES

Note to reader: Because of our system requirements, the footnotes contained in the original document are shown below instead:

1. Foley v. The Queen, 2000 CanLII 232 (TCC),