I find it astonishing that there is a gender based presumptive rule remaining in Canadian tax law – constitutional or not it is offensive:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/07/20/ottawa-father-benefits.html
An Ottawa-area father who raised two children on his own for eight years claims the Canada Revenue Agency stripped him of child tax benefits after he moved in with a common-law spouse.
Yannick Cloutier said he received a letter from the federal agency recently advising him that the benefits would be transferred to his common-law spouse — two years after she moved in with him.
The agency ruled that under the so-called "female presumption rule", the benefits must now go to his girlfriend, despite the fact she has no biological connection to Clouthier's son and daughter, and did not raise them.
…
Revenue
2 comments:
Hi James - Did you by chance ever do any follow up on this issue?
I just blogged my thoughts on this rule (which is new to me): http://northvandad.blogspot.ca/2013/04/government-requirement-women-must-show.html
and having just spoke to CRA on the phone, I have started to google this key phrase "feminine presumption rule".
On the CanLII d/base I could only find one listing with a partial reference (http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22female+presumption%22+rule&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals) but I can't seem to find anything that conclusively tests the rule.
If you have any ideas of where I could look, I would be grateful.
Full Disclosure: I have no specific legal / financial concern/case regarding this rule; and even though I am currently applying for this benefit, the benefit would be paid to a joint account.
I am simply the primary care-giver and it is just a matter of principal and I wanted to read more. Thx in advance.
I was just on the phone w the CRA today, and they actually mentioned this rule by name to me. They were sympathetic and kind, but said yep, that's the way it is.
I have had full custody of my children for 3 years running. After receiving no child tax benefit for some time I enquired to the CRA. Turns out I need to apply and send a rigorous barrage of documents.
If my children's mother catches up on her taxes (she's behind), she'll keep getting child benefits as they used to come to her. I on the other hand have already done my taxes, shown FULL 100% custody documents, and still have to "apply" for benefits and then prove the kids have in fact also been with me and that she wasn't also caring for them or in the same address, they want to see leases, bills etc etc. The CRA just "presumes" all of it should go to the mother, by default. The agent basically admitted this much was in fact true.
I can't for the life of me understand how this "is" constitutional. I think this needs to be challenged.
Post a Comment