Subsection 259(1) - Definitions
Facility Operator
See Also
Elim Housing Society v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 282
The appellant ("Elim"), a B.C. non-profit organization, sought the enhanced (83%) public service body HST rebate respecting a long-term care facility with up to 118 residents (mostly with dementia, severely impaired mobility, complex medical issues and a life expectancy of between three months and three years), which was constructed and operated by it (the "Harrison"), on the basis that it was making "facility supplies." There were five nurses and 16 care aides available to provide care during the day. Before allowing Elim's appeal, Woods J found:
- Elim provided a medically necessary process of health care (noting, at para. 63, that "much of the care… is delivered through care plans, created by nurses, and which are tailored to address specific medical concerns" and rejecting, at para. 64, the Crown submission that "the term ‘medically necessary' should mean medically necessary as determined by a physician")
- there was active involvement of physicians (stating, at para. 71, that "the physicians generally have a pro-active approach by visiting their patients roughly every two weeks…[, they] receive updates from the nursing staff…[and] are available at all times and participate in The Harrison's inter‑disciplinary meetings and medication reviews")
- the residents were subject to medical management (stating at, para. 78, that "it is not necessary that the physician have management of the health care process itself")
- residents received sufficient therapeutic health care services
On the last point, she stated (at paras. 83, 86, 90-91, 95-97):
The gist of the dispute between the parties is whether the services provided by care aides at The Harrison, such as toileting and bathing, are therapeutic health care services.
…[T]he term "therapeutic" can mean "having a good effect on the mind or body": Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53… .
…[M]any of the routine services provided to residents by care aides apply nursing expertise to address particular medical concerns…[and are] of a different type than ordinary assistance with activities of daily living… .
The agreed upon test was that therapeutic health care services had to be provided for at least 2.4 hours (10 percent) each calendar day. … [J]udicial interpretations…do not support the bright line 10 percent test. … The Harrison received funding during the relevant period for 2.8 hours of care per resident per day. Since some of the care… is provided in groups (e.g. oversight for choking risk at meals), the funding actually provides greater than 2.8 hours… .
Administrative Policy
3 July 2012 Ruling Case No. 109082
The residents in a nursing home
have heavy care needs and require a two-person transfer, are totally incontinent and are either cognitively impaired or have dementia. In addition, many residents require restorative aid and/or complex wound care which is provided by specialized nursing staff. The nursing staff spends several hours each day assisting each resident with the activities of daily living (i.e., transfer, toileting, feeding, and mobility) whether rendering the services themselves or supervising other staff members in the delivery of these services.
Before finding that the charitable operator was not making a facility supply, CRA stated:
The medically necessary process of health care for a resident at the Facility is such that the nursing staff and other health care professionals are responsible for the delivery of the key services, actions, operations and events that reflect the objectives outlined in the Letters Patent for the Facility and not the Attending Physician. The Attending Physician may be required under the Attending Physician's Agreement and the Long-Term Care Homes Act and Long-term Care Homes Program Manual to perform certain duties and meet certain responsibilities (i.e., visit with each resident every week, provide an on-call service, review the results from all diagnostic tests ordered, counter-sign all orders, perform semi annual reviews of the care plan and other services). However, the Facility, or part of the Facility was not established for the medical or surgical treatment of an individual. The underlying purpose for residents and/or their legal guardians to seek residence at the Facility is to receive 24-hour nursing care and supervision within a secure setting and not medical care provided by a physician.
13 September 2011 Ruling Case No. 102589 (similar to 13 September 2011 Ruling Case No. 118500)
The registrant (a charity) operated "group homes" whose main function was to give on-going life skills training and life-long learning and support in developments skills to people with significant developmental disabilities. The individuals providing these services worked in the fields of social services, nursing and psychology. After already having ruled that the group homes did not qualify as health care facilities, CRA went on to note that as the above activities did not fit the definition of a "facility supply," the registrant was not a "facility operator" and not eligible for the public service body GST rebate.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part II - Section 1 - Health Care Facility | 121 |
Facility Supply
Administrative Policy
24 July 2019 GST/HST Ruling 162099 - 83% Public Service Body rebate eligibility
The Corporation, which is a registered charity receiving a portion of its operating funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), through the Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN), but relies mainly on donations, operated a palliative care hospice with the patients having a physician on call at all times, the physicians attending interdisciplinary meetings regarding the patients and writing orders, which are carried out by the nurses and with the nursing staff spending several hours each day assisting each patient with the activities of daily living, such as transferring, toileting, feeding, and mobility.
In connection with ruling that the Corporation is a facility operator making facility supplies at a qualifying facility, and before referring to the decision in Elim Housing, CRA stated:
It is our understanding that palliative care differs from chronic care. Therefore, it is not necessary for elements referred to in clauses (a)(iii)(A) to (D) of the definition of “facility supply” to be met in order for a supply to qualify as a “facility supply”, where only palliative care is being provided, as in the present case.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(2.1) - Paragraph 259(2.1)(c) | absence of accreditation or authorization by the Ministry of Health was acceptable as the facility was accountable under an Accountability Agreement to its LHIN | 221 |
26 September 2017 Ruling 126881
A registered charity (the “Corporation”) operates a long-term care home that provides extensive care for individuals who have been approved following an assessment process for admission by their regional Community Care Access Centre as being in need of nursing care and medical attention. The Corporation has been licensed by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) pursuant to the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007 to operate the home, and the MOHLTC is the main source of funding of the operations of the home. Health care services provided at the home include:
- 24-hour nursing services and assistance with daily living
- daily physician’s services and visit for each resident
Physician services are provided on an ongoing, continual basis in that physicians regularly visit and provide 24-hour on-call services. All residents of the home have a physician on-call at all times.
CRA ruled that the Corporation is a facility operator making facility supplies at a qualifying facility (i.e., the home) so that it is eligible for the 83% federal public service body rebate as well as the 87% Ontario PSB rebate. In its explanation, CRA briefly described satisfaction of the “qualifying funding” requirement in s. 259(2.1) as well as the facility accreditation requirement in s. 259(2.1)(c) (here, by the MOHLTC) and, similarly to 138196, provided an extended discussion of Elim Housing, noting that in that case:
- physicians visited residents frequently (e.g., roughly on a bi-weekly basis); …
- registered nurses were at the facility at all times, and nurses were in regular communication with physicians for prescription or advice;
- the facility received funding for 2.8 hours of care per resident per day …;
- the care provided was of a different type than ordinary assistance with activities of daily living that a more robust individual might require.
CRA then stated:
After comparing the services and the care provided by the Corporation at [X] to its residents with the elements described in Elim, we are of the view that facility supplies are provided at [X] by the Corporation.
24 July 2017 Ruling 138196
A registered charity (the “Corporation”) operates a nursing home, or long-term care facility (the Facility) that provides extensive care for individuals who are unable to manage their own basic requirements. The Corporation has a Long-Term Care Home Licence, issued by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) pursuant to the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007, for the Facility. The Facility only has residents who have been assessed by a physician retained by the Province as being unable to live independently. They require ongoing medical support to assist them in their living and health care needs. All residents require medical and/or nursing care 24 hours per day. There are a specified number of physicians who are either present or on call 24 hours per day, and also extensive nursing services provided.
CRA ruled that the Corporation is a facility operator making facility supplies at a qualifying facility (i.e., the Facility) so that it is eligible for the 83% federal public service body rebate as well as the 87% Ontario PSB rebate. In its explanation, CRA briefly described satisfaction of the “qualifying funding" requirement in s. 259(2.1) as well as the facility accreditation requirement in s. 259(2.1)(c) (here, by the MOHLTC), and focused on the “facility supply” requirement, stating:
Elim Housing … made the determination that Elim was entitled to claim the 83% PSB rebate as a facility operator operating a qualifying facility based on the presence of the following elements which indicated Elim to be making facility supplies:
- residents were under the care of a physician, who was either associated with the facility or had a pre-existing relationship with the resident;
- physicians provided substantial medical care (e.g., addressed medical concerns, participated in medication reviews, attended interdisciplinary meetings);
- registered nurses were at the facility at all times, and nurses were in regular communication with physicians for prescription or advice;
- the facility received funding for 2.8 hours of care per resident per day (the calculation was based on scheduled staffing hours);
- the care provided was of a different type than ordinary assistance with activities of daily living that a more robust individual might require.
After comparing the services and the care provided at the Facility to its residents to the elements described in Elim, we are of the view that facility supplies are provided at the Facility by the Corporation.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(14) | 93% use of utilities for facility supplies deemed to be 100% | 201 |
18 March 2013 Interpretation Case No. 134610
The "Society") is a registered charity which provides long-term residential care for seniors with complex care needs. CRA was asked whether the care services rendered by are assistants to residents, including bathing, grooming, dressing, feeding, transporting and mobility assistance, were "therapeutic health care services" for purposes of s. 259(1)(a)(iii)(D). CRA stated that in order for care services to so qualify,
there must be an identification or diagnosis of a particular injury, illness, disability or other health issue (i.e., what we will call a "health condition") of an individual and it must be reasonable to conclude that the service in question is rendered with the objective of treating that health condition or its symptoms.
Although most of the mooted services here instead entailed assistance with activities of daily living, CRA noted that "there may be situations in which a service of assisting a resident with an activity that an average person would often perform on their own may be considered a therapeutic health care service." To illustrate, CRA offered the following examples:
(i) Turning or repositioning and the direction of a physician to deal with bed sores;
(ii) Application of topical cream or ointment at the direction of a registered nurse to treat a wound;
(iii) Range of motion exercises in accordance with a treatment plan of a licensed physiotherapist to address stiffness in the shoulder area during recovery from a minor fracture;
(iv) Taking a resident for walks while recuperating from surgery at the recommendation of a physician recommends periodic walks to prevent blood clots and improve gastrointestinal and urinary tract function.
20 May 2011 Headquarters Letter Case No. 115028
A division of a registered charity which had been designated as a hospital authority by the Minister, and which had been claiming the public services body rebate at a 50% rate in respect of GST incurred in operating an Ontario nursing home (where most of the residents suffered from Alzeimer's or other cognitive deficiencies), was not entitled to claim the rebate at the higher 83% rate that would have been available if it had qualified as operating a "qualifying facility" for use in making "facility supplies," given that "the vast majority of care services provided at the Home are rendered by the nursing and support staff, with minimal instruction, management or supervision by a physician." This interpretation of the requirement for "active direction or supervision" or "active involvement" of a physician (or certain substitutes) accorded with the purpose of the higher rebate:
...it was not the intent of the Department of Finance to make the 83% PSB rebate available to nursing homes and similar long-term care operations that do not make supplies of health care services similar to those traditionally provided in hospitals....These [latter] types of facilities include, for example, those that offer a high level of therapeutic care, cancer clinics, day surgery clinics and community health centres that render primary care services.
Paragraph (a)
Subparagraph (a)(iii)
Clause (a)(iii)(B)
Administrative Policy
6 July 2020 GST/HST Ruling 123293 - Eligibility for the 83% health care rebate
The Corporation, a registered charity, receives government funding from X to operate a facility for seniors (the “Facility”), which provides a range of programs and services to residents at the Facility to meet their health care needs including nursing care, physical, social, dietary and therapeutic recreational programs.
All the residents at the Facility are under physician care, either using their own family physician or one that has been found for them. The physicians assist in the setting up of residential care plans to address each resident’s needs including nursing, diet and various types of therapy, if required. The physician of each resident is responsible for providing all medical orders specific to that resident and directs all medical interventions.
The Corporation has a 24/7 system in place to obtain physician assistance for residents at the facility. Where the chronic care residents at the facility have medical problems that require a high level of health care, a physician is present at, or on-call to attend at, the Facility at all times during the resident’s stay.
One physician on staff has the title of Medical Director at the Facility. He is paid as a contractor (not as an employee) and spends about [#] hours per week at the Facility in this role. He reviews each resident's care plan every six months with staff. In addition to time at the Facility visiting his own patients, he also has his own family practice.
The Medical Director’s principal responsibility is to oversee the medical care. The Medical Director also acts as an emergency backup should a physician not be available. This happens on rare occasions since physicians are supposed to arrange their own backups. The Medical Director also has his own patients who live as residents at the Facility and whom he services apart from his role as Medical Director.
Each resident is assigned a primary nurse who creates the plan of care with input from the physician and others. The Corporation provides 24-hour personal care and nursing assistance to residents at the Facility.
CRA ruled that the Corporation was entitled to the 83% PSB rebate. CRA stated:
the Facility meets all of the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “qualifying facility” in subsection 259(2.1) and, as a result, the Corporation is a facility operator for purposes of section 259. Accordingly, the Corporation is entitled to an 83% PSB rebate of the GST and the federal part of the HST paid or payable on eligible purchases and expenses to the extent that it intended to consume, use or supply the property or service in the course of activities engaged in by the Corporation in the course of operating the Facility for use in making facility supplies, or of making facility supplies (Footnote 4) .
As discussed above, the definition of “facility supply” requires that an exempt supply made to an individual at a qualifying facility be part of a medically necessary process of health care that is reasonably expected to take place under the active direction or supervision, or with the active involvement, of a physician. As such, not necessarily all supplies made by the Corporation constitute facility supplies.
Municipality
Cases
Az-Zahraa Housing Society v. Canada (National Revenue), 2023 FC 842
The appellant (the “Society”) was a non-profit society whose goal was to provide affordable, or “rent-geared-to-income” (“RGI”) housing in the city of Richmond, British Columbia. To that end, it acquired 15 strata units in a residential development project. As the rent from the 15 units could not cover the mortgage payments and other operating costs, a B.C. government organization (“BC Housing”) purchased six of the units from the Society and leased them back rent-free. The Minister’s delegate denied the Society’s application to be designated as a municipality pursuant to s. 259(1) on the ground that the government assistance to the Society in the form of the sale and lease-back arrangement was not government “funding” as required in the CRA published guidelines (in an information sheet) for when the Minister would designate an organization providing RGI housing as a municipality.
Before ordering that this denial of designation be remitted to a fresh delegate for redetermination, Grammond J stated (at paras. 25, 29):
This is an obvious case of fettering of discretion. Section 259 … simply does not lay out any criteria for the exercise of the Minister’s power to designate an entity as a municipality. By refusing to consider circumstances that fell outside the four corners of the information sheet, the Minister’s delegate essentially treated the latter as if it superseded the broad discretion granted by section 259 of the Act. …
As the Minister’s delegate fettered her discretion, the decision is unreasonable.
After noting that a regulation defining “government funding” for purposes of determining the relevant rebate rate for some of the non-municipal entities referred to in s. 259 was not relevant to designations as a municipality, Grammond J stated (at para. 39) that “[i]t is … difficult to see why the precise form of assistance matters and why creativity in structuring the relationship between government and providers of municipal services should be discouraged” and (at para. 40) that “no suggestion was made that designating the Society as a municipality would give rise to any form of tax unfairness.”
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Other Legislation/Constitution - Federal - Federal Courts Act - Section 18.1 - Subsection 18.1(2) | CRA had fettered its statutorily-accorded discretion by strictly adhering to its published guidelines | 209 |
Wellesley Central Residences Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), [2011] GSTC 101, 2011 FC 760
R.L. Barnes J. affirmed the Minister's decision not to designate the taxpayer as a municipality given that there was insufficient basis to interfere with the Minister's discretion. The taxpayer corporation was a registered charity that constructed a 112-unit residential facility to care for frail seniors and people with HIV. The Minister's policy was to to allow the municipality designation for entities that supplied accommodation, but withhold it where residents are provided with a variety of services in addition to the supply of accommodation, which was the case here - the taxpayer provided personal care, homemaking, and coordination with other service providers. Although the taxpayer's activities were laudable, the designation was within the Minister's discretion and the decision not to make such a designation was "transparent, intelligible, and rationally supported by the reasons given" (para. 23).
Administrative Policy
25 May 2021 GST/HST Interpretation 209926 - Eligibility for the Public Service Bodies' Rebate at the Municipal Rate
A registered charity (the Charity) has been designated as a municipality pursuant to s. 259(1) respecting its housing units in a housing project that are supplied to tenants on a rent-geared-to-income (RGI) basis and for which a government subsidy is payable. Such units are interspersed in new housing project and are leased by the Charity from a commercial real estate developer. The case “RGI and Deep Subsidy Units” are subleased by the Charity to low income households based on a “Rent Scale” that is less than the market rent and with the status of the renters supported by documentation evidencing the income and assets of such residents at the time of the initial residency and annually thereafter.
The “Market Units” are subleased to moderate-income households at an initial rent set at the market rent for that unit type in the community, as approved by the Organization. Again, the Charity will obtain supporting documentation evidencing the income and assets of such residents at the time of the initial residency.
The Charity will make all reasonable efforts to achieve and maintain a target resident income mix agreed to by the Organization.
The Organization will provide funding in the form of forgivable and repayable loans to facilitate the acquisition of the new housing project, and will also provide a monthly operating subsidy.
According to the Organization’s Rent Calculation Guide, under Subsidy Payments, economic rent is the overall operating cost for each RGI Unit. When a resident’s Tenant Rent Contribution (TRC) is less than economic rent, the Organization will provide a subsidy to make up the difference between the TRC and the operating cost for that unit. This does not apply to units where residents pay market rent.
CRA noted that GI-124 states that an organization may be designated as a municipality if it is inter alia a charity that supplies long-term residential accommodation within a program to provide housing to low-to-moderate-income households, more than 10% of the housing units in the project are provided on an RGI basis, and it receives funding from a government or municipality to assist it in providing the accommodation to low to moderate-income households, and further noted that the Charity has been designated to be a municipality pursuant to s. 259(1) in respect of its housing units in the housing project.
CRA then stated:
The Charity’s provision of RGI housing units and Deep Subsidy Income units may qualify as designated activities where the Charity receives government funding from [the Organization] to subsidize the cost of these units, the rents are based on a rent to income scale (RGI rents), and tenants who occupy the units are subject to annual income reviews. Therefore, the Charity may be eligible for the municipal rebate in respect of the provision of RGI housing units and Deep Subsidy Income units.
The Charity’s provision of Market Units would not be qualifying RGI housing activities for the purpose of its municipal housing designation. The units are provided as long-term affordable housing to tenants whose income does not exceed moderate income limits at rents based on the market rent for the community (not on a rent to income scale (RGI rents), the tenants who occupy the units are only subject to income reviews upon initial occupancy (and not periodically), and the Charity does not receive an operating subsidy for the Market Units. Therefore, the Charity would not be eligible for the municipal rebate in respect of the provision of the Market Units.
7 August 2019 GST/HST Interpretation 197932 - Municipal designation
Following the refusal of the landowner of a mobile home park to upgrade the system for handling wastewater, the residents created a cooperative, which acquired the mobile home park, built an authorized sewerage system and, in exchange for rent, supplied the residents on a bundled-together basis with a site in the mobile home park, along with sewerage services, unbottled water and management services.
CRA indicated that it “seems reasonable in the circumstances” that this would be a single supply of the sites that was exempted under Sched. V, Pt. I, s. 7(b), respecting the rental of sites in a “residential trailer park” - and went on to indicate that the exemption under Sched. V, Pt. VI, s. 23 applied, and further stated:
Supplies of unbottled water are considered to be standard municipal services. A person, such as a water hauler, water co-operative, or a private utility, that supplies unbottled water may be designated as a municipality under subsection 259(1) for purposes of claiming the municipal rebate for GST/HST paid on its purchases or expenses that are used to provide exempt water and delivery services specified in the designation.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part I - Section 7 - Paragraph 7(b) | reasonable to consider that supply of trailer park sites together with sewerage and water services was a single supply of rented land | 103 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part VI - Section 22 | administrative guidelines for municipal designation exclude private systems | 255 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part VI - Section 21 | sewerage provided by private cooperative was not exempted | 281 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Schedules - Schedule V - Part VI - Section 23 | supply of unbottled water by private cooperative was exempted | 156 |
RC4034 "GST/HST Public Service Bodies' Rebate" - Includes Forms GST66 and RC7066 SCH" 2010
If a local authority is determined to be a municipality, it has the benefit of municipal status for all GST/HST purposes. For example, a paramunicipal organization can apply to be determined to be a municipality. ....
If a person is designated to be a municipality for particular exempt municipal services that it supplies, the person is considered to be a municipality only for the purposes of the public service bodies' rebate and only for those particular exempt municipal services. The designation does not apply to the organization as a whole.
The designation allows the person to apply for a rebate of the GST/HST using the municipality rebate factor, but only for the tax paid or payable on purchases used in the course of supplying the exempt municipal services for which the organization was designated.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(4) | 28 |
Non-Creditable Tax Charged
Administrative Policy
10 August 2017 Ruling 182286
The Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act, 2016 (Ontario Rebate Act), provides financial assistance to certain Ontario electricity recipients by means of an 8% reduction in the amount payable for electricity. The 8% rebate amount is shown as a separate line item that reduces the total amount payable for electricity after the HST has been calculated and applied. How does the rebate impact input tax credits and public service body rebate claims?
After ruling that the rebate “has no impact on claiming ITCs or the PSB rebates of the provincial part of the HST,” CRA stated:
The Ontario rebate is financial assistance provided by the province to eligible recipients of electricity and serves to reduce the total amount payable by the recipients. The rebate is not a reduction in consideration for the supply of electricity, nor is it a reduction to the HST payable in respect of the supply of electricity. The Ontario rebate does not alter the value of the ITC that is claimable by a registrant who uses the electricity consumed in its commercial activities.
Furthermore, the Ontario rebate does not impact on the calculation of the non-creditable HST charged in respect of the electricity for the claim period, and therefore does not affect the amount of the PSB rebate.
GST/HST Memorandum 13.5 Non-creditable Tax Charged January 2017
Rebate calculated individually
14. Non-creditable tax charged is calculated on a property by property, service by service basis.
Subsection 259(2)
Administrative Policy
22 December 2020 GST/HST Interpretation 209955 - – Public Service Body Rebate – Whether subsidies under certain programs are considered government funding] […]
A non-profit organization (NPO) generally is entitled to GST/HST public service body rebates if the percentage of its “government funding” (defined in s. 2 the Public Service Body Rebate (GST/HST) Regulations) is at least 40%.
CRA noted that the s. 2 definition excludes a “refund, rebate or remission of, or credit in respect of, taxes” and also references a purpose of “financially assisting the particular person in carrying out the purposes of the particular person,” and further indicated that the purpose of the Canada emergency wage subsidy (“CEWS”) program was to “re-hire workers previously laid off as a result of COVID-19, help prevent further job losses, and better position businesses to resume normal operations following the crisis.” CRA concluded that the CEWS was not government funding under the definition, given that it “is a refund in respect of income taxes imposed under the ITA” and it “is not paid for the purpose of financially assisting the NPO in carrying out the purposes of the NPO. “
CRA applied a somewhat similar analysis to find that the 10% temporary wage subsidy for employers program also did not count as government funding.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - Public Service Body Rebate (GST/HST) Regulations - Section 2 - Government Funding | CEWS received by an NPO does not qualify as government funding for GST/HST PSB rebate purposes | 305 |
Subsection 259(2.1)
Paragraph 259(2.1)(a)
Administrative Policy
13 July 2021 GST/HST Ruling 212992 - Question on eligibility for 83% Public Service Bodies Rebate
The Corporation (a registered charity not qualifying as a hospital authority) which currently operated a palliative care facility (residential hospice) had applied for and received the 83% public service bodies rebate for the period that it commenced operation, but also applied for this rebate (rather than only the 50% rebate for charities) regarding its costs incurred during the construction period to the extent that the property and services acquired were acquired for the purpose of making eligible facility supplies.
After ruling that the Corporation did not qualify as a facility operator prior to the opening (i.e., during the construction phase), so that it was not entitled to such rebate, CRA noted that the definition of qualifying facility for a fiscal year included a requirement that the supplies of services ordinarily rendered “during that fiscal year” qualified as facility supplies under the modified version of that definition.
Paragraph 259(2.1)(c)
Administrative Policy
24 July 2019 GST/HST Ruling 162099 - 83% Public Service Body rebate eligibility
The Corporation, which is a registered charity receiving a portion of its operating funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), through the Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN), but relies mainly on donations, operated a palliative care hospice.
After ruling that the Corporation is a facility operator making facility supplies at a qualifying facility, CRA went on to find that s. 259(2.1)(b) was satisfied in light of the LHIN funding, and went on to find that s. 259(2.1)(c) also was satisfied, stating:
The Province of Ontario does not require an accreditation, licence or authorization to operate a residential hospice whose nursing services provided to residents/patients are funded directly or indirectly by the MOHLTC.
The MOHLTC (via the LHIN) provides funding for the Facility’s services. The Corporation is accountable to the LHIN. Through the Accountability Agreement, the LHIN provides funding to the Corporation for palliative care services. The Corporation is accountable to the LHIN, which is accountable to the MOHLTC. …
… [T]he combination of these elements allows us to conclude that the Corporation, as the operator of the Facility, has an authorization that is recognized or provided for under a law of a province in respect of facilities for the provision of health care services.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(1) - Facility Supply | registered charity operating a palliative care hospice was making facility supplies | 198 |
Subsection 259(3) - Rebate for Persons Other Than Designated Municipalities
Administrative Policy
25 May 2020 GST/HST Ruling 125678r - […][Entitlement to Ontario PSB rebate using the rebate factor of a school authority]
An Ontario registered charity (the “Institution”) that is a not-for-profit school authority mostly operates as a school, but it also carries on other activities. CRA ruled that the Institution was entitled to the 68% federal rebate and 93% Ontario rebate, given inter alia that the definition of “selected public service body” under s. 259(1) – (a) includes a school authority that is established and operated otherwise than for profit. Respecting the federal rebate, CRA stated (before making similar comments on the provincial rebate):
As a school authority, [the Institution] is entitled to claim a 68% PSB rebate of the non-creditable GST charged and the federal non creditable HST charged in respect of property or services to the extent that the property or services are for consumption, use, or supply in activities engaged in by [the Institution] in the course of operating an elementary or secondary school. To the extent that property or services were acquired by [the Institution] for other activities, [the Institution] is eligible to claim a 50% PSB rebate of the non-creditable GST charged and the federal non creditable HST charged.
12 June 2014 Ruling 133588r [no PSB rebate of charity re provincial HST on purchases for use in province where no PE]
The Charity, which was incorporated in Participating Province X, was found not to have a permanent establishment in Participating Province Y, i.e., what, by virtue of s. 2(2) of the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2, would be a permanent establishment under Part IV of the ITA Regs if Charity's activities were a business. As it is not resident in Participating Province Y, Charity "would not be entitled to a PSB rebate of the provincial part of the HST to the extent that the property or services are intended to be consumed, used or supplied in the course of its activities in [Participating Province Y]."
Excise and GST/HST News - No. 89 (Summer 2013) under "Time limits for claiming a public service bodies' rebate (PSB rebate)"
Non-creditable tax charged for a particular claim period only includes GST/HST that was payable or that was paid without having become payable during that claim period. GST/HST payable in one period generally cannot be included in the non-creditable tax charged for a subsequent claim period. …
If a PSB has already claimed a PSB rebate for a claim period and subsequently discovers additional GST/HST that was paid or payable during that claim period, the PSB must adjust the previously filed rebate application to claim a PSB rebate for the additional GST/HST. The PSB cannot include the additional tax in the PSB rebate application for a different claim period.
Articles
Michael Matthews, "Claim Your Public Service body Rebates on Time – or Amend", Canadian GST/HST Monitor (CCH), May 2014, No. 308, p. 1.
Prior practice of carrying forward rebate claims to subsequent returns (p. 1)
By strictly applying the law, the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") has recently effectively announced a policy change which affects all public service bodies ("PSB")… .
Since the introduction of the GST, almost every PSB took the position that any amount of GST/HST that was paid or payable in a previous claim period could be claimed in any subsequent PSB claim, since a PSB has up to four years to claim the rebate. For example, for a PSB that is a monthly filer, an invoice dated January 1, 2014 but not processed before June 2014 would normally be included in the June rebate claim. This was a practical and reasonable solution as it is virtually impossible for larger PSBs to receive and process their suppliers' invoices within a 30 day period (i.e., the typical claim period for a monthly filer).
Requirement in GST/HST News No. 89 that additional claims must now be made in the same return (p. 2)
It appears that the CRA's position [fn 3: Revenue Quebec is adopting the same administrative policy for QST purposes] has created two options for PSBs: (1) assume the cash flow consequences by postponing filing rebate claims until all invoices have been processed, or (2) file amended rebate claim applications each time an invoice is received or processed after the rebate claim period. Both solutions place an unnecessary burden on PSBs.
Subsection 259(4) - Rebate for Designated Municipalities
Cases
Whitehorse (City) v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 298, aff'd 2013 FCA 144
The taxpayer sought a s. 259(4) GST rebate on a travel allowance paid to its employees for return trips to Edmonton or Vancouver, on the basis that the taxpayer was deemed to have paid them pursuant to s. 174(a)(iv). The principal purpose of these flights was to allow employees to take time off in more populated areas, a benefit that helped the taxpayer attract a larger pool of qualified employees. In issue was whether the travel allowance was paid for supplies of property or services acquired by the employees "in relation to" activities engaged in by the taxpayer, as required by s. 174(a)(iv).
Sheridan J. dismissed the taxpayer's appeal - although the allowances were helpful to the taxpayer's employee hiring and retention, the flight expenses were intended for employee recreation. There did not exist a "sufficient nexus" between the flights and the taxpayer's activities (para. 22).
It was not clear which authority governed - the test in ExxonMobil that the allowance not be for the "exclusive personal use" of the employees, or the test in Midland Hutterian Brethren that there be a "functional connection between the needs of the business and the goods" (or services, in this case). Sheridan J. suggested that the tests were essentially the same, but expressed in different terms (para. 20).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 174 - Paragraph 174(a) - Subparagraph 174(a)(iv) | recreational travel allowances paid to employees had insufficient nexus to employer's activities | 232 |
Administrative Policy
RC4034 "GST/HST Public Service Bodies' Rebate" - Includes Forms GST66 and RC7066 SCH" 2010
Using the Special Quick Method does not affact your public service bodies' rebate entitlements and you still claim your rebate in the ususal way.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(1) - Municipality | 145 |
GST M 500-4-2 "Municipal Rebates"
Subsection 259(4.1)
Administrative Policy
6 July 2001 Headquarter Letter 34915
"Hospital activity, for purposes of the 83% GST/HST rebate, means the operation of a facility that is a public hospital and excludes the provision of long-term care activities, such as residential care services. If a designated hospital authority operates a separate facility for the purpose of providing residential care, where the designated hospital authority provides residential care within a segregated ward or section of a public hospital, the GST/HST paid in respect of the operation of the separate residential care facility or the residential care activity carried on in the segregated ward or section of a public hospital must be 'carved out' of the 83% rebate pursuant to the apportionment rules provided in subsection 259(4.1) .... ."
Subsection 259(7)
Administrative Policy
25 February 2020 GST/HST Ruling 202245 - Subsection 259(7) - selected public service body recovering costs from other selected public service bodies
The Corporation, a designated hospital authority and a registered charity entered into a joint procurement agreement with other similar Ontario hospital authorities (collectively, the “Parties”), which contemplated that the Corporation would act on the Parties’ behalf (but not as their agent) to contract with property providers for the provision of elements of the single supply of property, under which the Corporation is the sole Party liable to pay the consideration for such procurement, and that the Corporation is entitled to recover from the other Parties their share of the “Regional Costs” (being expenditures that are to be shared among all of the Parties on an equitable basis). The supply of [the property] by the Corporation to the other Parties is exempted under Sched. V, Pt. VI, s. 2.
The Corporation acquires such property primarily for use by the other Parties as its own use of the property is less than 50% of the total use. The other Parties will use the property exclusively in the course of operating a public hospital, of operating a qualifying facility for use in making facility supplies or of making facility supplies, ancillary supplies or home medical supplies.
After ruling that the Corporation is entitled to claim a public service bodies’ rebate of 83% of the federal non-creditable HST charged, and 87% of the provincial non-creditable HST charged, on the acquisitions of the property, CRA stated:
Generally, the Corporation would not be able to claim a public service bodies’ rebate using the hospital authority rate [of 83%/87%] on all the HST payable on the acquisition of [the property]. Under subsection 259(7), however, for any property or service acquired by the Corporation primarily for consumption, use or supply in the course of activities engaged in by the other Parties, the Corporation is deemed to be engaged in those activities for the purpose of determining the public service bodies’ rebate for the Corporation in respect of the property or service for any claim period.
In this case, the acquisition of [the property] by the Corporation is primarily for consumption, use or supply in the course of activities engaged in by the other Parties. Further, the other Parties intend to use [the property] exclusively in the course of their hospital authority activities. Accordingly, the Corporation would be entitled to claim a public service bodies’ rebate of 83% of the federal non-creditable tax charged and 87% of the provincial non-creditable tax charged on the acquisition of [the property].
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - Public Service Body Rebate (GST/HST) Regulations - Section 5.4 - Subsection 5.4(2) | ETA s. 259(7) used to maintain access to high rebate rate under collective procurement arrangement | 148 |
Subsection 259(14)
Administrative Policy
24 July 2017 Ruling 138196
After ruling that an Ontario nursing home (the “Facility”) that was operated by a registered charity (the “Corporation”) qualified for the federal 93% PSB rebate as well as the Ontario 87% PSB rebate on the basis of its similarities to the facility in Elim Housing, CRA stated:
Generally, subsection 259(14) means that where the Corporation incurs 90% or more of the GST/HST for a property or a service acquired in its capacity as a facility operator (e.g., for use in making facility supplies), all of that GST/HST is deemed to have been incurred in that capacity. As such, the Corporation could claim a PSB rebate for that property or service at the rate of 83% for the GST and the federal part of the HST and, as a resident only in Ontario, at 87% for the provincial part of the HST. For example, if the Corporation incurs GST/HST on its utilities, and the Corporation determines it incurs 93% of the GST/HST in its activities as a facility operator for making facility supplies, the Corporation may claim 100% of the GST/HST it pays on the utilities using the 83% (and 87%) PSB rebate rates.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 259 - Subsection 259(1) - Facility Supply | Elim Housing followed in finding that an Ontario nursing home qualified | 578 |