Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CCRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ADRC.
Principal Issues: whether homeopaths are medical practitioners
Position: no
Reasons: ITA
March 27, 2002
XXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXX:
The Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of National Revenue, has asked me to reply to your correspondence of February 11, 2002, with which you enclosed a copy of the response you received from the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, concerning the inclusion of homeopaths in the list of references to medical practitioners in Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R2, Medical Expense and Disability Tax Credits and Attendant Care Expense Deduction.
Subsection 118.4(2) of the Income Tax Act provides a definition of medical practitioners for the purposes of the medical expense provisions of the Act. I am attaching a copy of the exact wording, for your reference. Medical expenses are only deductible under the Act if a medical professional, who is authorized by the laws of the jurisdiction where the services are provided to perform those services, performs the services.
A person is authorized by a province or other jurisdiction to act as a medical practitioner if there is specific legislation that enables, allows, permits, or empowers a person to practice as such. Although the legislation does not have to use the words "medical practitioner", it would have to specifically allow a person to perform certain medical services. While a particular law may not indicate that a person can't perform specific services, it does not mean that the jurisdiction has authorized that person to perform medical services.
Although it is possible that there are jurisdictions outside Canada that have laws that authorize homeopaths to provide medical services, the CCRA is not aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that has laws that regulate homeopaths or authorizes persons to provide homeopathic services. Therefore, the CCRA is of the view that it would not be appropriate at this time to include homeopaths in the list of persons who may be considered medical practitioners for the purposes of the Act.
If you are aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that has such legislation, or, if in the future, the services provided by homeopaths become regulated by laws in Canada, the CCRA would be pleased to consider adding homeopaths to the list of medical practitioners in the bulletin.
I trust my comments have explained the CCRA's policy on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Bill McCloskey Assistant Commissioner Policy and Legislation Branch
Attachment
Denise Dalphy
941-1722
APPENDIX I
"118.4 (2) Reference to medical practitioners, etc. - For the purposes of sections 63, 118.2, 118.3 and 118.6, a reference to an audiologist, dentist, medical doctor, medical practitioner, nurse, occupational therapist, optometrist, pharmacist, psychologist or speech-language pathologist is a reference to a person authorized to practise as such,
(a) where the reference is used in respect of a service rendered to a taxpayer pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the service is rendered;
(b) where the reference is used in respect of a certificate issued by the person in respect of a taxpayer, pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the taxpayer resides or of a province; and
(c) where the reference is used in respect of a prescription issued by the person for property to be provided to or for the use of a taxpayer, pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the taxpayer resides, of a province or of the jurisdiction in which the property is provided."