Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 1234
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-08 11:57
Madam Chair, perhaps I can try to answer the member's question.
The coverage level is something we worry about at the CRA. If you look at our annual report to Parliament and do the calculation, you see that our coverage level for small- and medium-sized businesses is quite low, below 5%. However, we don't like providing that calculation because we don't want people to know that our coverage level is very low.
Given how low the audit coverage level is, the information is redacted so that people do not realize that the likelihood of them being audited is extremely low. We don't want a situation where they decide to take a chance, on the basis of that information, and not file a return or adopt an aggressive approach.
Even though it is possible to figure out some rates, we worry that disclosing the figures might encourage people not to file.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you.
On page 40 of the datasets that have been disclosed to us, there's a section on compliance risks and strategies, with a subheading “Deterrence”, which says that “messages from the Minister of Finance stated that there would be severe penalties for those who take advantage of the CEWS and that the CRA would be enabled/equipped to identify and address cases of abuse.”
Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Sabia, would he not agree that companies that received the wage subsidy and then went out to pay astronomical bonuses and dividends to their CEOs and shareholders were taking advantage of the CEWS? What can be done to address these cases of abuse?
Andrew Marsland
View Andrew Marsland Profile
Andrew Marsland
2021-06-08 11:59
In response to the question, I think the reference is to the penalty that was included in the original legislation. There was a penalty provided under the CEWS for businesses that artificially manipulated their revenues to qualify for a subsidy.
As—
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
From the point of clarity, if I'm to understand that correctly, companies that were sitting on significant holdings in cash and liquidity and then paid dividends were qualified and perhaps would not be considered as taking advantage of this program.
Just to cut to the chase, I reference the recommendation at paragraph 7.35: “The Department of Finance...should complete and publish an economic evaluation” of the wage subsidy program.
Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Sabia, given my comments and given the attention on companies such as Air Canada, Imperial Oil and others, as part of the risks and evaluation of the program when it's done to date, will the evaluation include the way in which companies took taxpayer dollars meant for workers and siphoned that money off to shareholders?
Michael Sabia
View Michael Sabia Profile
Michael Sabia
2021-06-08 12:01
Madam Chair, through you, we will undertake a thorough analysis of the program, particularly against its fundamental objective, as I've said before, of maintaining the working relationship, the employment relationship, between an individual and their employer, which continues to be the objective of this program.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Sabia, will you be dealing with CEO bonuses and dividends that were paid out on the CEWS, yes or no?
Michael Sabia
View Michael Sabia Profile
Michael Sabia
2021-06-08 12:01
Madam Chair, through you, I think we'll undertake a thorough analysis of the program in all its aspects.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
My question is to Mr. Gallivan, and of course Mr. Hamilton is welcome to comment as well.
I want to build on what my esteemed colleague Mr. Fergus said when he was asking about the 5% default rate, because I was struck by something, and I thank him for his excellent questioning.
Is that 5% default rate based on just everyone, from the highest economic standpoint to the lowest, and not reflective of there being a pandemic? I have a suspicion that this number will be maybe double or even triple that, due to the pandemic and due to these benefits oftentimes being paid to some of the people dealing with the largest economic challenges.
Can you comment on that? Maybe you're going to tell me I'm way off, but I suspect that I'll be validated.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-08 12:03
I would say our colleagues were developing that estimate for a purpose, which was dialing in the level of risk and the level of effort that would be required. It would be speculation on my part, but I would speculate that they would have stratified to at least a T1 population and made T2 corporate income tax and sales tax different programs.
At the very least, it would have been customized to individual taxpayers and the historic rate around individual taxpayers, but it probably would have been too soon for us to account for the economic consequences of the pandemic, which are playing out in front of us right now.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Perfect. Thank you very much.
On that as well, I'll tell you—and this is just anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is never as strong as empirical—I've had a number of people come into my constituency office who didn't hit that $5,000 threshold. They got caught up in the CERB thing. To be candid, I don't think your department did a very good job of communicating who could and who didn't. I don't say that from my perspective; that's my constituent speaking.
He didn't make the $5,000. He got caught up. He applied and he got it for a year and more. This particular individual I'm talking about hasn't ever made over $5,000 in his life, and I don't see any way that he's ever going to pay it back. Quite frankly, the compassionate human being in me tells me that I don't really want to be forcing him to pay it back.
Can you comment on individuals like that and how CRA will treat people like that?
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:04
Perhaps, Madam Chair, I'll take a first cut at that.
You're right. Something that we consider as we look at people who owe money is what their situation is and what the situation is relative to the pandemic that's around us.
What we've tried to emphasize for all of our compliance collections people is that we need to be empathetic. Yes, to the extent that people got benefits they weren't eligible for, we need to take action, but we need to take that action with sensitivity, and what we call at the agency “people first”. Let's understand the situation. Let's make sure there is good communication.
You referenced at the beginning some confusion over whether the income threshold was gross or net. The government has acknowledged that. We at the CRA have said that our communication was not perfect in the early days, and so there have been actions taken with regard to that. More broadly, there would be people, for one reason or another, who mistakenly got benefits to which they weren't entitled, and we are trying to work our way through all of that as we get all the tax information.
People can be assured that as an organization we're trying to be as empathetic as we can to the person's situation vis-à-vis the pandemic or the economic consequences they suffered.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to follow up on Mr. Lawrence's comment about his constituent. I also have a constituent who did not qualify for the CERB amount.
Mr. Hamilton, you talked about being empathetic. If the CRA was incorrect in giving the advice and allowing for these constituents to receive the funds, why can we not reverse that decision and allow them not to pay back the amounts?
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:08
Madam Chair, I think it would be inappropriate in this forum to talk about specific taxpayer issues, and there are lots of different circumstances and situations out there. What I was referring to is that overall we do need to look at it case by case to determine what we think is fair and reasonable and where there is more of a systemic issue, and I talked about the gross versus net that we saw on the CERB. Then we can take actions that are more broadly based, but we just have to look at every situation.
This is not unknown to us, even outside of a pandemic. We have to take that look and determine how the situation transpired and what the appropriate action is in that situation. We do have taxpayer relief programs. As Mr. Gallivan referenced, we have payment plans that we can agree to with the taxpayer. There are a number of different vehicles to try to handle these situations, and what we are emphasizing is to just take actions that are appropriate in the context of the pandemic that everybody has been going through.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Should they have to go through a payment plan if they were given erroneous information? I'm not talking about one specific constituent; it's a number of cases.
Bob Hamilton
View Bob Hamilton Profile
Bob Hamilton
2021-06-08 12:09
I already referenced, Madam Chair, the gross versus net issue, on which the government did take action to basically allow access to people whose gross income was greater than $5,000, but not their net income.
That was kind of a systemic issue. If you go down into individual cases, we really have to look at the facts of those situations and try to take an appropriate compliance position or collection position. I would emphasize that we are doing our best to be sensitive and empathetic in those situations, but there are many different cases and circumstances out there that we need to assess.
Results: 61 - 75 of 1234 | Page: 5 of 83

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data