15 April 1992 Administrative Letter 9208506 F - Clergyman's Residence Housing Allowance Remuneration

By services, 7 July, 2022
Official title
Clergyman's Residence Housing Allowance Remuneration
Language
French
CRA tags
8(1)(c)
Document number
Citation name
9208506
Severed letter type
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
649687
Extra import data
{
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_proprietary_citation": [],
"field_release_date_new": "1992-04-15 08:00:00",
"field_tags": []
}
Main text
  920850
  R.B. Day
  (613) 957-2136

April 15, 1992

Source Deductions DivisionBusiness and General DivisionA. BissonnetteDirector

Attention:  E. Hammond

Clergyman's Residence Deduction - 8(1)(c) Your File HAK-4903-22-0 & RE-4299

We are writing in reply to memorandum of March 18, 1992, wherein you requested our opinion on the above noted subject as discussed in the February 25, 1992, letter from  19(1)

Our Comments

We have reviewed  19(1) analysis of the income tax implications of paragraph 8(1)(c) as it relates to the issues raised in his letter and are of the opinion that it reflects a valid interpretation of that paragraph.  Our comments with respect to the two issues set out on page two of the letter, are as follows:

1.     This matter appears to relate to an interpretation of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) which normally falls within the jurisdiction of your division.  If there are technical issues arising from the application of the CPP that you wish us to consider, we would be pleased to do so at your request.

2.     It is our opinion that there is no justification for limiting the deduction for rent paid for a residence under subparagraph 8(1)(c)(ii) to the amount reported as a housing allowance under paragraph 6(1)(b). In other words, we agree with          19(1)          view that the wording in subparagraph 8(1)(c)(ii) which limits the amount of the deduction to the taxpayer's "remuneration from his office or employment as described subparagraph (i)" cannot in any way, be interpreted as limiting the deduction to the amount of the housing allowance received.  As a consequence we believe that favourable consideration should be given to 19(1)          request in this respect.

B.W. DathDirectorBusiness and General DivisionRulings DirectorateLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch