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.
MINISTER/DEPUTY MINISTER'S OFFICE 95-02603M ADM'S OFFICE RETURN TO 15TH FLOOR, ALBION TOWER November 30, 1995
XXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXX:
I am writing in response to your letter of March 22, 1995, XXXXXXXXXX further to your earlier enquiry concerning the validity of the requirement for the payment of a deposit from persons seeking an advance income tax ruling. You referred to your files
XXXXXXXXXX.
You will perhaps recall that I had asked departmental officials to review this matter and the position previously taken by the Department.
The Department continues to be of the view that the requirement for a deposit that will be applied to the cost of an advance income tax ruling is a sound business practice and is advantageous to our clients as well as to the Department. This partial payment of the total fee is an integral part of the administration of this fee-for-service program. The practice of charging a fee is authorized and the timing of the collection of the fee is part of the same authorization. The authority to prescribe when the fee is payable is intrinsic to the authority to prescribe a fee. From a legal perspective, the Department is not exceeding its authority and I would add it has no desire to do so.
The Department is not aware of any complaints from requesters of rulings about the requirement for a partial prepayment or deposit. The deposit is in reality a partial payment of the fee for the ruling. You have described a hypothetical situation of a ruling being issued with a charge of less than five hours as an example of why the amount should be considered as a deposit. However, a review of departmental records indicates that substantially all advance rulings issued involved a billing to the client for an amount in excess of the deposit.
As there are very good policy reasons for the present financial procedure on requests for advance income tax rulings and the Department believes the procedure is authorized, I am sure that you will understand the reluctance to remove a requirement that has been in place for over 20 years.
I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention and trust we can now consider the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
David Anderson, P.C., M.P.
Bryan Dath
957-2089