Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations

Section 2

Intermediary

See Also

Agence du revenu du Québec v. Stamatopoulos, 2018 QCCA 474

ARQ failed to establish that a named supplier to the taxpayer did not act as a supplier or intermediary

The respondent (“Stamatopoulos”) served as an intermediary between clothing manufacturers and subcontractors, who would sew and assemble the clothing. Representatives of the subcontractors, who had provided Stamatopoulos with valid GST and QST registration numbers which he had checked (along with other registration information), delivered the clothing after it had been sewn directly to the manufacturers. Stamatopoulos paid their invoices (issued in the name of the subcontractors) by cheque after, in turn, being paid by the manufacturers. The subcontractors did not remit the QST paid to them by Stamatopoulos, and the trial judge found (at para. 27 that de facto managers, who were unknown, managed the subcontractors rather than their de jure (i.e., registered) managers. Although the ARQ acknowledged that the contracted-for sewing services had been received, it took the position (paras. 36, 43) that such work had not been performed by the subcontractors named in the invoices.

Before affirming the finding below that the invoices received by Stamatopoulos satisfied the documentary requirements for claiming input tax refunds, Marcotte JCA stated (at paras. 53-54, 56):

[C]ontrary to what was pleaded by the Agency, it matters little whether the person with whom the taxpayer deals directly in connection with a genuine commercial transaction acts as a “supplier” or an “intermediary,” since the provisions of the Regulation respecting the Québec sales tax provide that the invoice must contain the name of the “supplier” or that of the “intermediary” who is authorized by the supplier to cause or facilitate the making of the supply. Whether the person with whom the taxpayer deals directly, in a genuine commercial transaction, itself supplied the work is without consequence if the supporting documentation satisfies the requirements of this Regulation… .

Furthermore, where the taxpayer has discharged the taxpayer’s initial burden of proving that the invoices in fact were issued by a person with whom the taxpayer dealt directly in a genuine commercial transaction, it then falls on the tax authorities to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the person with whom the taxpayer dealt directly did not act as a “supplier” or as an “intermediary.” …

[T]he judge concluded that the evidence presented by the Agency did not support the hypothesis that a business other than the subcontractors indicated in the invoices had transacted with Mr. Stamatopoulos, all the more as he had demonstrated his direct contractual relationship with the subcontractors and as the Agency did not contest that the invoices emanated from the subcontractors stated on the invoices, but instead challenged that the services actually were provided by them.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(4) burden shifted to ARQ once taxpayer showed that it had business dealings with suppliers named in invoices 246
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Onus onus shifted to ARQ once the taxpayer had demonstrated that he had business deaings with issuer of mooted invoice 199

SNF L.P. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 12

intermediary need not carry on business and may be a nominee

The appellant ("SNF"), acquired metal scrap from 12 suppliers, who were registered for GST purposes, but who did not remit the GST which they invoiced to SNF. Each supplier named in the invoices was “a 'prête‑nom' and not the actual supplier” (i.e., each supplier acted on behalf of an undisclosed principal). After stating (at para. 53) that “since a "prête‑nom" contract is a valid contract, the question then is whether the "prête‑nom" is an intermediary of the true supplier whose name may appear on the documentation supporting the supply,” Rip J concluded (at para. 81)

That…suppliers may not have carried on a business or were "prête‑noms" does not, on the facts, affect the appellant's right to claim ITCs.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(4) ITCs where reasonable efforts to verify suppliers and registration numbers, where GST not remitted 360
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 261 - Subsection 261(1) no rebate entitlement for an error caused by the applicant’s own inattention and carelessness 104
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Agency "prête‑nom" contract is a valid contract 197

PDM Royalties Limited Partnership v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 270

no allocation on invoices

In an attempt to obtain input tax credits for GST incurred on the IPO of an income fund, the income fund and a subsidiary LP (which held the business) agreed that the taxable expenses were to be incurred for the account of the LP. After finding that such agreement was not sufficient to make the LP the "recipient" of the services, as it was not a party to the agreements with the services providers, V. Miller went on to note various deficiencies in the invoices of the suppliers, and stated (at para. 51):

[W]here an invoice represented services to both the Appellant and the Fund and I could not ascertain the portion payable by the Appellant, I did not allow the ITC involved.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 123 - Subsection 123(1) - Recipient intragroup expense-bearing agreement did not change the recipient of services rendered on IPO 276
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(1) internal agreement to allocate IPO costs was ineffective/services consumed rather than re-supplied 366

Tchebotar v. The Queen, [2013] GSTC 43, 2013 TCC 32 (Informal Procedure)

sales records shredded

The appellants shredded all their sales records but "were fastidious in recording and categorizing their business expenses" (para. 25). Campbell J found that the Minister was justified in using a net worth assessment to determine the appellants' income, and to impose gross negligence penalties based on the amounts thus determined.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 285 sales records shredded 49

Administrative Policy

GST Memorandum (New Series) 8.4

The documentary requirements would be satisfied where a sales representative for a supplier ("who may or may not be the agent of that supplier") makes a taxable supply of property on behalf of that supplier as its intermediary. The invoice identifies the intermediary's name and its GST/HST registration number. Accordingly, with this information, the person who acquires the property may satisfy this element of the documentary requirements to be eligible to claim an ITC

Finance

Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (accompanied the 2000 amendment in 2000 to add "intermediary" definition):

These Regulations are amended to permit an invoice or receipt issued to the registrant by an agent or other intermediary of the supplier to be used to substantiate an input tax credit claim of the registrant. ... The amendment to enable a receipt or invoice issued by an agent or other intermediary to suffice as supporting documentation for an input tax credit claim simplifies compliance for registrants. Section 3

Supporting Documentation

Administrative Policy

23 March 2017 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.19

invoice addressed to the wrong person can be corrected for GST/HST purposes with a letter confirming this

Yco misaddressed its invoice to Xco (also a registrant) for a taxable supply by either (i) misspelling Xco’s name, or (ii) using the name of Xco’s sole shareholder. In either case, if Xco obtains a corrected invoice from Yco, will it be accepted as “supporting documentation” as defined in s. 2 of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations? What if Xco obtains from Yco a letter confirming that Yco misaddressed the original invoice and that it should have been addressed to Xco?

CRA responded:

Where all the prescribed information as defined in section 3 of the Regulations is set out in the supporting documentation, a registrant may be able to claim an ITC in respect of a supply they acquired in the course of their commercial activity even though the invoice issued for that supply may contain errors related to the registrant name or be issued to the wrong registrant. …

If an attempt is made to remedy the [described] situation by obtaining an amended invoice in compliance with the disclosure requirements, then the CRA will accept the amended invoice as supporting documentation.

With respect to the letter from the supplier … [p]aragraph (h) … includes “any other document validly issued or signed by a registrant in respect of a supply made by the registrant on which GST/HST is paid or payable”. Consequently, a letter issued by a supplier in respect of a supply made by that supplier would qualify under this paragraph.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 232 - Subsection 232(3) - Paragraph 232(3)(a) incorrect invoice could be corrected with a letter 71

Section 3

Paragraph 3(a)

See Also

Rochus Geissel, as liquidator of RGEX GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss (Neuss Tax Office), C 374/16, [2017] BVC 58 (European Court of Justice, 5th Chamber)

policy met where registration of vendor can be verified

The European VAT rules required that an invoice provide the “full” name and address of the supplier. The Court held that this requirement can be satisfied by a “letter box” address of a correctly-named supplier, noting that the principal focus of the purchaser and the tax authority auditing its input tax deduction claim for the VAT charged by the letter box supplier should be on whether that supplier had a valid VAT registration.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - New Harmonized Value-Added Tax System Regulations - Subsection 13(1) a letter box address is a valid address for VAT purposes 449

Les Ventes et Façonnage de Papier Reiss Inc v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 289

ITCs denied because purchases evidenced by invoices not issued in the actual supplier’s name

The taxpayer operated a business that bought and sold recycled or non-compliant paper. Input tax credits were denied for the GST on invoices received from six purported suppliers (the "Suppliers") of the taxpayer, all of whom had a GST registration numbers at the time they issued their invoices to the taxpayer. The Minister submitted that the invoices presented were invoices of convenience because the Suppliers were not the true suppliers of the products acquired by the taxpayer.

In dismissing the appeal, Lafleur J stated (at paras 209, 211, 215 and 223):

There is no doubt that the Suppliers were not engaged in any commercial activity during the years at issue. …

All of the cheques issued by the Appellant in payment of the invoices in question were cashed at cheque-cashing centres. …

According to…Kosma‑Kare [2015 TCC 182] and Salaison Lévesque [2014 FCA 296]...the name of the true supplier or its intermediary (within the meaning of the ETA) must appear on the invoices and good faith is not a relevant criterion in that regard. …

The Appellant submits that since the Respondent acknowledged that supplies had been provided in relation to the invoices issued by the 4 suppliers, this was sufficient to entitle it to ITCs. This argument cannot be accepted.

Administrative Policy

23 March 2017 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.11(b)

Amalco can issue invoice on behalf of one predecessor re purchase by another predecessor

If A is assessed for failure to charge GST/HST to B, and then then amalgamate, Amalco may generally claim an input tax credit for the GST/HST that was payable by one predecessor to the other (so that only interest is now payable on the assessment). In particular:

Where the predecessor (the supplier) did not provide the documentary evidence to the other predecessor prior to the amalgamation, the new successor could provide the necessary documentation thereby allowing the new successor to claim the ITC effectively reducing their liability to any applicable interest and penalty.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 271 an unpaid GST/HST remittance obligation can be offset against an ITC if the vendor and purchaser amalgamate 235

Subparagraph 3(a)(ii)

See Also

International Hi-tech Industries Inc. v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 240

invoice not issued if not sent

The auditing firm (“DMCL”) issued an invoice for audit services rendered to the appellant which it claimed not to have seen until it was obtained and presented to it by Crown counsel during the trial. The payment arrangements for the services of DCML were partially evidence by an initial retainer letter and then by an email sent a number of months later by DMCL to the appellant, to fix the audit fee at a level higher than that originally estimated, and provide for a payment schedule.

After noting (at para. 65) that “the information required by subsection 169(4) … may be contained collectively in multiple documents,” Sommerfeldt J noted that whether s. 3(a)(ii) or (iii) of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations applied turned on whether DCML had issued an invoice to the appellant. In this regard, he noted after quoting definitions of “issue” (para. 71):

[I]n order to issue an invoice, not only must the invoice be created, but it must also be sent to the client or customer.

Accordingly, it was possible that the DMCL invoice had not been issued to the appellant. However, even if it had not been so issued, so that the applicable requirement was in s. 3(a)(iii), the supporting documentation did not actually specify the dates on which the payments had been made.

Words and Phrases
issue
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 152 - Subsection 152(1) - Paragraph 152(1)(b) departure of supplier from its usual prompt invoicing 230
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(1) no contractual nexus between ITC claimant and supplier 245
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 168 - Subsection 168(9) possible deposits subsequently may have been applied by agreement as payments on account 205
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 221 - Subsection 221(2) unregistered purchaser 33
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part I - 9 - Subsection 9(2) sale by corporation not exempted 28

Paragraph 3(b)

Subparagraph 3(b)(i)

See Also

THD Inc. v. The Queen, 2018 CCI 147

requirement to obtain required information at time of ITC claim

The appellant, which had a trucking business, acquired various supplies from a supplier (“Service Stakkers”) for which it was invoiced, with the first invoice being received in or around September 2012. By letter dated August 20, 2012, Revenu Québec had revoked the GST registration of Service Stakkers effective the earlier date of first registration of Service Stakkers on May 14, 2012. When Revenu Québec brought deficiencies in the invoices originally issued by Service Stakkers to the appellant’s attention in 2014, it got Service Stakkers to issue fresh invoices, but these did not contain a valid registration number.

In finding that the appellant did not satisfy the documentary requirements for claiming input tax credits, Favreau J stated (at paras. 58-59, TaxInterpretations translation):

The appellant thus did not have in hand the particulars prescribed by the Regulation at the time that it claimed the ITCs as required by paragraph 169(4)(a) … .

In the circumstance, the auditor did not have to consider the new invoices presented by the appellant in May 2014 but he confirmed that the new invoices were also invalid, because the GST/HST appearing on the new invoices had been annulled effective May 14, 2012.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 182 damages received for the “modification” of a supply contract were deemed to be GST-inclusive irrespective of an ITC to the purchaser 172

Administrative Policy

8 March 2018 CBA Commodity Tax Roundtable, Q.15

subject to s. 169(5), supplier’s registration number must be valid on due date

Systematix Technology (2006 TCC 277, aff’d 2007 FCA 226) stated: “there must be a registration number assigned to the supplier in conformity with subsection 241(1) is the time of the supply or, at the latest, the time of the filing of the return.” SNF L.P. held that an ITC cannot be claimed for GST/HST that was paid to a supplier whose registration number was cancelled as of the sale date. When must the registration number be valid? Before referencing its GST/HST Registry, CRA stated:

Generally, the registration number assigned to the supplier must be valid at the time the tax in respect of the supply becomes payable by the recipient or is paid by the recipient without having become payable. This is consistent with when the ITC of the recipient first arises under subsection 169(1) of the ETA, and when the tax becomes collectible or is collected by the supplier. The requirement under paragraph 169(4)(a) and the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations to obtain the GST/HST registration number assigned to the supplier is intended to substantiate that the supplier is validly registered for purposes of claiming the ITC.

However, CRA stated:

[U]nder subsection 169(5), the Minister is given discretionary power in certain circumstances to exempt a specified registrant, a specified class of registrants, or registrants in general from the documentary and information requirements stated in subsection 169(4), if the Minister is satisfied that there is, or will be, sufficient evidence to establish the particulars of a supply and the tax paid or payable in respect of the supply. The Minister may also specify the terms and conditions for applying such an exemption.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(5) CRA has discretion to waive requirement for contemporaneously valid vendor registration number 128

Paragraph 3(c)

Subparagraph 3(c)(ii)

See Also

2253787 Ontario Inc. v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 121 (Informal Procedure)

grey market buyers cannot be agents

The appellant operated a small grey market business to buy iPhone 4 units from Apple's Canadian retail channels and resell them in Hong Kong, where they were not yet available. Friends and family members (the "buyers") would purchase one or two phones each, for which the appellant fully reimbursed them. The Minister denied the appellant's input tax credit claim for the HST incurred by the buyers on the basis that they were not its agents (and also on the basis of inadequate documentation).

Bocock J found that the buyers were not the appellant's agents as they did not have the authority to bind it. Apple's terms of sale prohibited buying phones for resale - that is, Apple would never have entered into the sales contracts directly with the appellant. Bocock J stated (at para. 17):

[A] principal cannot appoint an agent to engage in a contractual entreaty [sic] into which the principal has no legal capacity or authority to enter: 1524994 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada, 2007 FCA 74 at paragraph 18.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Agency grey market buyers cannot be agents 165

Administrative Policy

23 March 2017 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.18

invoice in partner's name satisfactory where s. 175 reimbursement

Where a partner makes a purchase for use in the partnership business and receives a satisfactory invoice other than that it is in his name rather than that of the partnership, this will satisfy the documentary requirements for the partnership claiming an input tax credit. The same considerations apply to an employee reimbursement.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 175 - Subsection 175(1) where a partnership reimburses a partner for a partnership expense, an invoice on file in the partner’s name is satisfactory 212

11 September 2000 Ruling File Nos. 11601-3, 11650-10 and 11750-5-1

real estate nominee served as "representative" of beneficial owner for development expenditures

The Nominee holds legal title to lands (the "Property") as bare trustee for and on behalf of the Owner. Under the terms of the Nominee Agreement, it agreed to deal with the Property only on the directions of the Owner and to execute and deliver all agreements, leases, covenants, instruments and assurances required by Owner from time to time in connection with the Property. In connection with the Owner’s development of the Property, the Nominee has contracted on behalf of the Owner for the supply of goods and services from third parties, with the resulting contracts and invoices being in the name of the Nominee.

Ruling:

The Nominee may be considered to be the Owner's representative for purposes of the Regulations. Invoices and contracts supporting the Owner's claim for input tax credits, identifying either the Nominee or the Owner as the recipient of the supplies, along with the Nominee Agreement, satisfy the documentary requirements as prescribed in the Regulations.

Words and Phrases
representative
Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 123 - Subsection 123(1) - Recipient beneficial owner was recipient of contracts entered into in name of nominee 61

Subparagraph 3(c)(iv)

See Also

Construction S.Y.L. Tremblay Inc. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2018 QCCA 552

failure of invoices to describe the supplies could not be remedied by testimony

In the federal Construction S.Y.L. Tremblay case, Bédard J found that house-repair invoices, that did not give the house address or describe the precise nature of the work performed (and that were rendered in the name of entities that did not remit the GST), failed to satisfy the requirements of s. 3 of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations, so that the appellant’s related input tax credit claims were properly denied. Prior to that decision, the appellant in that case had appealed the denial by the ARQ of the input tax refunds claimed by it for QST on those invoices under the equivalent provisions under the Quebec Sales Tax Act, to the Court of Quebec – and also stated that (at para. 25) “I am convinced that the appellant did not truly acquire the supplies for which it claimed ITCs in its net tax calculation.” After the ARQ then made a motion for the Quebec appeal to be dismissed as an abuse of process, the appellant filed a declaration that it intended to file more numerous documents and produce 19 witnesses in support of its appeal.

Before going on to affirm the finding of the Court of Quebec that allowing this (Quebec) appeal to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, Thibault JCA stated (at paras. 39-42, TaxInterpretations translation) that:

After having decided that the evidence which the appellant sought to advance was not new, the judge determined that, even if it were, it would not change the result because it did not satisfy the requirements prescribed by the QSTA and the Regulation.

To have a right to the claimed input tax refunds, the appellant had to establish that it had acquired the supplies for which it claimed the refunds and provide invoices issued by the suppliers that conformed to the requirements under the QSTA and the Regulation.

… Since all the supplies had a value of $150 or more, the invoices were required to contain a description sufficient to identify each supply. However, none of them had such a description. … The new evidence would not provide any invoice that could qualify for the desired refunds.

Even with the additional evidence, the appellant cannot demonstrate the validity of the claimed input tax refunds. The appellant’s provision of numerous witnesses cannot remedy this deficiency since those documents do not satisfy the requirements for obtaining input tax refunds.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Stare Decisis Court of Quebec not bound by Tax Court decisions/stare decisis does not preclude relitigation where unfairness would otherwise result 208
Tax Topics - General Concepts - Abuse of Process taxpayer’s attempt to relitigate an adverse TCC decision in the Court of Quebec was an abuse of process given that the new evidence to be tendered did not address its defective invoices 386
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(4) failure of invoices to describe supply was in itself sufficient to deny credit 168

Barlis 06 - Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira, [2016] EUECJ C-516/14 (European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber))

mere technical non-compliance with VAT requirements for complete invoices should not prevent input tax claims

A law firm’s invoice paid by a Portuguese registrant which, for example, simply referred to “Fees for legal services rendered until the present date,” did not satisfy the EU Directive respecting the requisite detail to be provided on an invoice. However, the Portuguese registrant then provided the Portuguese authority with other documents (not in invoice form, as technically required) containing the missing particulars. The European Court of Justice found that an input tax deduction should not be denied, stating:

[T]he fundamental principle of the neutrality of VAT requires deduction of input VAT to be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied… . It follows that the tax authorities cannot refuse the right to deduct VAT on the sole ground that an invoice does not satisfy the conditions required by…[the] Directive…if they have available all the information to ascertain whether the substantive conditions for that right are satisfied.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(4) requirement to grant credit if registrant provides non-invoice back-up 427

Construction S.Y.L. Tremblay inc. v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 406 (Informal Procedure)

house-repair invoices, that did not give the house address or describe the precise nature of the work performed, failed

The appellant was retained by insurance companies to repair houses that had been damaged by fire or flood. He did not check the GST registration numbers of his subcontractors, who cashed the cheques he paid to them at cheque-cashing centres. In finding that the appellant was not entitled to claim input tax credits given the failure of the invoices (for amounts over $150) provided to him to satisfy the requirements of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations (and after underlining the requirement in s. 3(c)(iv) thereof that there be a “description of each supply sufficient to identify it”), Bédard J. stated (at paras. 23-24):

Since the purpose of paragraph 169(4)(a) of the ETA and the Regulations is to protect the consolidated revenue fund against both fraudulent and innocent incursions … a description is sufficient when it allows the Agency to identify the work performed by the suppliers. In my opinion, invoices the appellant submitted to evidence cannot meet the condition set out at sub-paragraph 3(c)(iv) of the Regulations unless they contain the following information:

(i) the exact place the supplier in question rendered services. By exact place, I mean the street address where the work was carried out;

(ii) the exact nature of the supply. In this case, the invoices could have referred to the estimates that, I repeat, described the exact nature of the work to be carried out and the payment conditions. ...

[In] all the invoices submitted … at least one mandatory element of information is missing.

He also stated (at para. 25):

I am convinced that the appellant did not truly acquire the supplies for which it claimed ITCs in its net tax calculation ... .

Bijouterie Almar Inc. v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 618, [2010] GSTC 181

"assorted gold jewellery" was sufficient description of bulk purchase

The Minister disallowed the ITCs claimed for $15 million of gold jewellery purchases made over four years on the grounds inter alia that the appellant had not purchased the gold jewellery. Lamarre J. fouind that the appellant had displaced the Ministere's assumption by demonstrating that the supplier had sufficient inventory to supply the appellant.

Other locations for this summary
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 169 - Subsection 169(1) Vendor had capacity to provide goods

Administrative Policy

23 March 2017 CBA Commodity Taxes Roundtable, Q.3

ITC documentary requirements can be met by piecing together the retailer’s receipt and the credit card reporting

When a business purchases more than $150 (e.g., the purchase of a computer) from a retail store, the cash register receipt will not identify the purchaser, as required. Will this requirement be met if the purchase is made with a credit or debit card, so that the last four digits of the card will appear on the retailer’s receipt, and the purchase will appear on the credit card or bank statement? CRA responded:

There is no requirement that the evidence needed to support an ITC claim be contained in a single document. …

Therefore … if all the information related to the supply is accessible and is prescribed information that enables the CRA to determine the amount of the ITC, then that information will be acceptable to the CRA as satisfying the documentary requirements under subsection 169(4).