Income Tax Severed Letters - 2020-09-02

Ministerial Correspondence

29 July 2020 Ministerial Correspondence 2019-0828011M4 - Medical expenses – IVF and surrogacy

Unedited CRA Tags
118.2(2)(a) - definition of "patient;" and 118.2(2.2) of the Income Tax Act; section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Principal Issues: Multiple questions revolving around the same issue: whether the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) practice to disallow expenses incurred on behalf of a surrogate mother / person (e.g., procedures relating to in-vitro fertilization (IVF)) is discriminatory.

Position: No. The CRA is applying the wording in subsection 118.2(2.2), which requires that an amount be paid for the purpose of a patient conceiving a child, as the term “patient” is defined in paragraph 118.2(2)(a), for the purpose of subsection 118.2(2).

Reasons: The Tax Court of Canada has determined in its decision in Zanatta v The Queen, 2014 TCC 293, that paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act does not infringe on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because surrogacy-related fees are consistently non-deductible for all taxpayers.

Technical Interpretation - Internal

10 July 2020 Internal T.I. 2020-0841961I7 - Salary Deferral Arrangements

Unedited CRA Tags
248(1) “salary deferral arrangement”
solely future-looking employee incentive plans can still result in annual SDA assessments

Principal Issues: Clarification of certain past statements on employee incentive plans and SDAs.

Position: Comments provided.

Reasons: Additional clarification provided with respect to prior statements by the CRA on incentive plans and the conditions under which such plans may be SDAs that have been misinterpreted by, or caused confusion within, the tax community.

10 July 2020 Internal T.I. 2020-0850281I7 - Formula-based incentive plan

Unedited CRA Tags
248(1) “salary deferral arrangement”
rulings no longer issued on formula-based incentive plans

Principal Issues: Whether it can be reasonably determined if any given formula-based incentive plan is not a SDA over the duration covered by a proposed ruling.

Position: No.

Reasons: Whether a formula-based incentive plan is a SDA requires a full review of all relevant facts and circumstances pertaining to the plan itself and the participants individually. In addition, the review must take place on an annual basis, and only after all the relevant facts are known. Since such information will not be available at the outset, we are unable to reasonably determine if any given formula-based incentive plan is not a SDA over the duration covered by a proposed ruling.