The HST Blog : Canada Harmonized Sales Tax Lawyer Cyndee Todgham Cherniak for Assessments, PST & RST Issues in Ontario, British Columbia & Quebec

The Globe & Mail is reporting that Prime Minister Harper & Premier Jean Charest may sign a Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement (CITCA) (also known as an HST Agreement) on Friday, September 30, 2011.  In an article entitled "Ottawa, Quebec poised to ink $2.2 billion HST deal", it appears that the agreement promised during the election campaign has been negotiated.

The question for sales tax practitioners is: How different is this CITCA going to be from the model version used with Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia?  It appears that Canada has agreed to a significant change.  Revenue Quebec will continue to collect the tax in Quebec.

However, will Quebec loose the QST and adopt the HST?  In other words, will Quebec lose its naming rights?

When is the implementation date?  Businesses will need time to make necessary changes.

Also, will the HST rate go up, go down or stay the same? One benefit of harmonization is that QST should no longer be payable on the GST included amount.

What point of sale rebates (provincial exemptions from PVAT) will be selected by Quebec?  Will Quebec be restricted to point of sale rebates on only 5% or will they be permitted a higher percentage of coverage for point of sale rebates?

What will happen to zero-rated financial services?  Currently, under the QST regime, many financial services are zero-rated.  Under the GST regime, many financial services are exempt.  Zero-rated is better than exempt because the intermediary financial institutions are entitled to full input tax credits on inputs purchased for use in commercial activities (including zero-rated activities). A shift from zero-rated supplies to exempt supplies will have a significant effect on financial institutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Robert H. Jackson once wrote that:

"The United States has a system of taxation by confession. That a people so numerous, scattered and individualistic annually assesses itself with a tax liability, often in highly burdensome amounts, is a reassuring sign of the stability and vitality of our system of self-government. What surprised me in once trying to help administer these laws was not to discover examples of recalcitrance, fraud or self-serving mistakes in reporting, but to discover that such derelictions were so few. It will be a sad day for the revenues if the good will of the people toward their taxing system is frittered away in efforts to accomplish by taxation moral reforms that cannot be accomplished by direct legislation. But the evil that can come from this statute will probably soon make itself manifest to Congress. The evil of a judicial decision impairing the legitimate taxing power by extreme constitutional interpretations might not be transient. Even though this statute approaches the fair limits of constitutionality, I join the decision of the Court.”

United States v. Kahriger, 354 U.S. 22 (1953)

I think of this passage when I ponder some of the new and very complex rules relating to financial services, financial institutions, "arranging for" and pensions under the Excise Tax Act (Canada). As the insightful Justice Jackson has pointed out, the voluntary reporting regime is undermined when good companies who want to comply cannot.

The words of Justice Jackson may be repeated in Canada and in the context of sales taxes because the GST/HST regime involves self-reporting.  I am just saying ...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 19, 2010, the federal Department of Finance released "Financial Institution Rules for the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)", which is a rather long and complicated document. The good news is that only financial institutions (including de minimis financial institutions) must figure out how this document changes their way of doing business and imposes new obligations.  The bad news is that financial institutions may charge higher service fees to cover their compliance costs / assessment risks.

The released document provides information on changes to rules for selected financial institutions (also known as SLFIs).  The changes include changes to the test for determining whether an entity is an SLFI.  As a result, it will be important for entities to apply the new test to see whether they are still SLFIs and whether they are now considered to be a SLFI.  The release states:

British Columbia and Ontario's decision to join the HST, effective July 1, 2010, will significantly increase the number of FIs that are SLFIs. For example, a bank with branches in Ontario and Manitoba and in no other provinces would become an SLFI only as a result of Ontario harmonization.

This statement suggests that some entities (were not considered to be SLFI before and are considered to be a SLFI now) now have a lot of work to do to prepare before July 1, 2010.

The released document also provides information to financial institutions about the "special attribution method" (friendly name "SAM") that they are required to use.  This complicated formula will likely appear in the coming weeks in regulations and, therefore, will not be subject to scrutiny by opposition MPs and the Canadian Senate.

The SAM attribution methods are briefly discussed for:

i. banks

ii. insurance corporations

iii. trust and loan corporations

iv. investment plans and segregated funds

v. other corporations, individuals and trusts

The publication also covers the following topics:

• information requirements
• penalties
• MTFs that are ETFs
• timing of PVAT (provincial HST component) determination under SAM
• compliance rules
• transitional rules for SLFIs re Ontario and BC
• recapture of ITC rules for SLFIs
• SLFI transition installment base
• Imported supplies - non resident trusts
• SLFI rules respecting deemed pension supplies and pension rebate
•  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link