lisa philipps osgoode hall law school presentation to isac, may 30, 2011
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Lisa PhilippsOsgoode Hall Law School
Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011
![Page 2: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
It can be if programs are well designed to:
Work for diverse recipients (gender, family status, immigration status)
Interact with other tax and non-tax supports and services
![Page 3: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Fiscal cost2. Interaction with other income and
benefits3. Eligibility criteria4. Responsiveness to change in
circumstance5. Complexity/transparency6.
Administration/enforcement/adjudication
![Page 4: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Tax delivered benefits are costly to current government budgets, relative to some alternatives (eg. raising minimum wage)
Will they be paid for by cutting other supports or services critical to low income persons?
![Page 5: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Clawback of benefits should be gradual as wages rise
If non-cash supplemental benefits are withdrawn too quickly, recipients may end up worse off
Need for ongoing access to emergency funds
![Page 6: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Immigration status – tax benefits currently impose more onerous requirements
Benefit unit – individual, couple or household◦ Any joint unit results in potential benefit loss when
low income people live together◦ Any joint unit therefore creates a risk of
dependency trap for some household members◦ What vision of the ideal family is at play?
Targeting – how is “income” defined?◦ Deduction of past business losses, rrsp
contributions…
![Page 7: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Current tax benefits less responsive to changes in income (18 months+)
◦ reduces risk of overpayments◦ ‘bonus’ in year that income increases◦ but requires access to a more responsive back
stop ◦ what would replace OW or ODSP as the
emergency back stop?
![Page 8: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Response to changes in family status◦ More timely than changes in income◦ But 90 day wait time after separation can be
onerous◦ New rules for “shared custody parents” impose
splitting of monthly benefit between parents Pro’s: likely to reduce disputes with CRA; smoother
income stream than 6-monthly alternation Con’s: reduction in benefits for separated parents
who were claiming full benefit; continued ambiguity about “shared custody”
![Page 9: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Tax benefits interact with other provisions of a highly complex statute
Risk of accidental overclaiming Risk of not claiming or not appealing Cost of tax preparers Lower satisfaction due to non-transparency
(why are my benefits changing again? Are they correct?)
![Page 10: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
CRA and TCC have tax expertise, but not necessarily expertise in issues facing low income persons
Enforcement less intrusive in practice, but this can change ◦ Evidence of IRS audit practice in US◦ Auditor general targeting of CTTB enforcement◦ Broad enforcement powers in ITA◦ Does stigma resurface for less universal benefits?
![Page 11: Lisa Philipps Osgoode Hall Law School Presentation to ISAC, May 30, 2011](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062321/56649e7c5503460f94b7e40c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
TCC informal procedure appeals
◦ Less than $12,000 at issue◦ Agents are allowed◦ Relaxed evidentiary rules and procedure◦ Costs – unlikely but not impossible◦ Full appeal to FCA◦ Still less accessible geographically and
procedurally◦ Onus is on taxpayer to disprove Minister’s
assessment◦ Case law: not immune from troubling biases and
stereotypes