24 September 1996 External T.I. 9631785 - PHSPS AND SAME SEX SPOUSES

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:

1.Whether a PHSP continues to qualify as such where benefits are provided to same sex couples. 2. PHSP coverage - Whether it will be necessary for same sex couples to cohabit for a certain length of time.

Position:

1.The plan can qualify as a PHSP 2. We would expect that employees in such a relationship will have to cohabit for at least 12 months before being eligible for benefits from the employer's PHSP.

Reasons:

1.Re: the June 13, 1996 Tribunal Decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission - After considering the comments of the Commission and an analysis of the Act by our legal counsel, it has been determined that a plan which provides coverage for same sex couples can meet the definition of a "private health services plan." (the definition of PHSP does not preclude coverage for same sex couples) 2. The comments are consistent with the time requirement contained in the Act that has to be met by common law spouses (subsection 252(4)).

									963178
XXXXXXXXXX							M. Eisner

Attention: XXXXXXXXXX

September 24, 1996

Dear Sirs:

Re: Private Health Services Plans (PHSPs) and Same Sex Couples

This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1996, in which you requested that we advise you of any change in the Department's position regarding the tax status of PHSPs that provide same sex spousal benefits. We also acknowledge our telephone conversation on September 20, 1996.

As a result of the June 13, 1996 Tribunal Decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the case of Stanley Moore & Dale Akerstrom, we have reviewed our position with respect to the definition of a "private health services plan," as found in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. After considering the comments of the Commission and an analysis of the Act by our legal counsel, it has been determined that a plan which provides coverage for same sex couples can meet the definition of a "private health services plan."

You have also asked whether it will be necessary for same sex couples to co-habit for a specific period of time (e.g., a 12 month period), before they are eligible for PHSP benefits from their employer. We would expect that employees in such a relationship will have to co-habit for at least 12 months before being eligible for medical benefits from their employer's PHSP. This would be the same time requirement contained in the Act that has to be met by common law spouses.

We trust our comments will be of assistance to you.

Yours truly,

John F. Oulton
for Director
Business and Publications Division
Income Tax Rulings and
Interpretations Directorate
Policy and Legislation Branch