Principal Issues: Clarification for the CRA's position regarding the medical expense tax credit and private health services plans in light of the 2008 Budget proposals to change subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act
Position: It is the view of the CRA that the proposed amendment to the medical expense tax credit in the 2008 Budget proposals are designed to respond to recent court decisions such as Breger v. the Queen and that the proposed amendments is meant to confirm our previously existing practice. Accordingly, we can confirm that our position with respect to qualifying medical expenses and to private health services plans that cover them remains unchanged.
Reasons: The law and previous interpretations of the CRA.
XXXXXXXXXX 2008-027003
March 27, 2008
Dear XXXXXXXXXX :
Re: Private Health Services Plans
This is in response to your letter of February 29, 2008, inquiring about the medical expense tax credit ("METC").
In your letter, you are asking for clarification of the Canada Revenue Agency's position regarding the METC in light of the 2008 Budget proposals to change subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act").
While the draft legislation in the 2008 Budget can be read in a more restrictive way, the accompanying commentary makes it clear that the amendment is designed to respond to court decisions such as Breger v. The Queen, in which the Court found that the cost of vitamins qualified as a medical expense for purposes of the METC. It is the view of the CRA that the amendment is intended to confirm our previously existing practice. Accordingly, we can confirm that our position with respect to qualifying medical expenses and to the private-health services plans that cover them remains unchanged.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We trust that these comments will be of assistance.
Yours truly,
G. Moore
For Director
Business and Partnerships Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate
Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch