13 May 1997 Ministerial Letter 9710558 - phsp coverage for same sex life partner of an employee

By services, 30 October, 2018
Bundle date
Official title
phsp coverage for same sex life partner of an employee
Language
English
CRA tags
6(1)(A)
Document number
Citation name
9710558
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
506587
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1997-05-13 08:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state
Workflow changed
Main text

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.

Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.

Principal Issues:

coverage of same sex partners under an employer's health care plan

Position:

coverage does not taint plan's qualification as a phsp

Reasons:

June 13, 1996 HRC Tribunal decision Moore & Akerstrom

A. Humenuk
XXXXXXXXXX 971055

Attention: XXXXXXXXXX

May 13, 1997

Dear Sirs:

Re: Coverage Under a Private Health Services Plan

We are replying to your letter of April 18, 1997, in which you ask for confirmation of the change in the Department's position regarding the tax status of private health services plans that provide benefits to the same sex partner of an employee covered by the plan.

As a result of the June 13, 1996 Tribunal Decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the case of Stanley Moore & Dale Akerstrom, we have reviewed our position with respect to the definition of a "private health services plan," as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. After considering the comments of the Commission and based on an analysis of the legislation by our legal counsel, it has been determined that a plan which provides coverage for same sex couples can meet the definition of a "private health services plan". This change in interpretation is effective for the 1996 taxation year and will be applicable for the assessment of existing as well as new plans.

This position is not affected by subsection 252(4) of the Income Tax Act in which the extended meaning of "spouse" does not include a same sex partner. Accordingly, where a premium is paid by an individual to a private health services plan in respect of his or her same sex partner, it is our view that the premium would not be an eligible medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(q) of the Income Tax Act.

We trust our comments will be of assistance to you.

Yours truly,

C. Chouinard
for Director
Business and Publications Division
Income Tax Rulings and
Interpretations Directorate
Policy and Legislation Branch