| August 4, 1989 | |
| TO - Mr. A.G. Cockell | FROM - Technical |
| Chairman | Interpretations Division |
| REMISSION COMMITTEE | Don Lanos |
| 957-9231 |
SUBJECT: TAX REMISSION REQUEST 19(1)
19(1) & 24(1)
There is no question that the child qualifies for the deduction in each of the years. This has been recognized for each year open for reassessment. What remains are the statute-barred years for which no adjustment could be made.
19(1) & 24(1)
The remission request received from 19(1) was considered in November, 1987 and resulted in an Order in Council dated June 30, 1988. Although no names have been mentioned by 19(1) the circumstances are sufficiently similar that it is assumed that this case is the one referred to in his letter to his M.P.
21(1)(b) & 24(1)
19(1) did not enquire about disability deductions until he became aware in 1987 that he would be eligible for such deduction. He feels however that he should qualify for remission because of the ambiguity of the tax guide.
19(1) income is significantly greater than that of 19(1). While there is some financial setback it is not as significant as that for 19(1).
There has been no case made nor does there appear to be any case for remission under the extreme hardship criteria.
It is difficult to accept an "incorrect Departmental advice" argument when 19(1) had taken no steps to clarify whatever ambiguity may have existed in his reading of the tax guides.
While there has been some financial setback, none of the other conditions, one or more of which must be present in order to recommend favourably, is present.
Remission is therefore NOT recommended.
R.E. ThompsonChief, Technical Review SectionLegislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs Branch