dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (02/28/88)
I'm usually not at all bothered by the fact that the
Income Tax Act is incomprehensible to non-lawyers.
After all, it deals with a complex subject. I'm trying
to parse a particular subsection at the moment, however
(it's one that will be changed due to the budget of a
couple of weeks ago), and I'm finding it a little bit much,
even though I read the Act all the time. Just thought I'd
share it with the net, so you can all know the rules that
govern you :-)
Income Tax Act, section 56.1, subsection (2):
(2). For the purposes of paragraphs 56(1)(b), (c) and (c.1),
the amount, if any, by which
(a) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is
an amount (other than an amount to which paragraph
56(1)(b), (c) or (c.1) otherwise applies) paid by a
person in a taxation year, pursuant to a decree, order
or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to a
written agreement, in respect of an expense (other than
an expenditure in respect of a self-contained domestic
establishment of the person or an expenditure for the
acquisition of tangible property that is not an expenditure
on account of a medical or educational expense or in
respect of the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of
an owner-occupied home of a taxpayer described in
subparagraph (i) or (ii)) incurred in the year or the
immediately preceding taxation year for maintenance of
a taxpayer who is
(i) that persons' spouse or former spouse, or
(ii) where the amount was paid pursuant to an
order made in accordance with the laws of a province,
an individual within a prescribed class of persons
described in the laws of the province,
or for the maintenance of children of the taxpayer in the
taxpayer's custody, or both the taxpayer and such children,
if at the time the expense was incurred and throughout the
remainder of the year, the taxpayer was living apart from
that person
exceeds
(b) the amount, if any, by which
(i) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an
amount included in the aggregate determined under
paragraph (a) in respect of the acquisition or
improvement of an owner-occupied home of the taxpayer,
including any payment of the principal or interest in
respect of a loan made or indebtedness incurred to
finance, in any manner whatever, such acquisition
or improvement
exceeds
(ii) the aggregate of all amounts each of which is
an amount equal to 1/5 of the original principal
amount of a loan or indebtedness described in
subparagraph (b)
shall, where the decree, order, judgment or written agreement,
as the case may be, provides that this subsection and subsection
60.1(2) shall apply to any payment made pursuant thereto, be deemed
to be an amount paid by that person and received by the taxpayer
as an allowance payable on a periodic basis.
Aha, now I understand it (typing it always helps). A prize
(free tax advice by email) to the first person who tells me
what the above really means. (I'll even throw in a clue: paragraphs
56(1)(b), (c) and (c.1) provide for certain alimony and maintenance
(support) payments to be deducted by the payer and taxable to the
recipient.)
What's scary is that this is actually an important rule for separated
or divorced couples to know, when negotiating support arrangements.
David Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
--
{ uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!davegreg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (03/08/88)
[Income tax act deleted (I wish)]
Can you give us another clue Dave? For example, what language is the
section you quote written in? It doesn't look like French to me, and it
certainly cannot be called English.
** sigh **
--
Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue,
utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8. (613) 725-5411.
"Those who stand in the middle of the road get
hit by trucks coming from both directions." Evelyn C. Leeper.dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/15/88)
In article <490@xios.XIOS.UUCP>, greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes: > > [Income tax act deleted (I wish)] > > Can you give us another clue Dave? For example, what language is the > section you quote written in? It doesn't look like French to me, and it > certainly cannot be called English. The entire Income Tax Act is written in an advanced dialect of Prolog. (By the way, 3 people sent me their interpretations of what the provision says. The only correct one was gordan@maccs, Gordan Palameta.) David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (03/17/88)
In article <1988Mar14.185306.19552@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) writes: > >(By the way, 3 people sent me their interpretations of what the >provision says. The only correct one was gordan@maccs, Gordan Palameta.) ^^^^^^^ Does this mean it coincided with an official published interpretation, or is Dave saying "the only one which coincided with my (Dave's) interpretation", Are we on dangerous ground here? Is Dave liable for the opinions he publishes on the tax laws? Should he be making disclaimers? Can he make disclaimers when he explicitly states that he is a tax consultant?? etc. etc. Over to you Dave. Ray Dunn.. {philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/21/88)
In article <944@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: > In article <1988Mar14.185306.19552@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) > writes: > > > >(By the way, 3 people sent me their interpretations of what the > >provision says. The only correct one was gordan@maccs, Gordan Palameta.) > ^^^^^^^ > > Does this mean it coincided with an official published interpretation, or is > Dave saying "the only one which coincided with my (Dave's) interpretation", Both, since my interpretation happens to be correct. I can't fault the people who got it wrong, since they don't have the context to work with (the rest of the statute) and they aren't experienced at reading the Income Tax Act. There's really no issue as to what the law is here; that's explained in plenty of secondary sources. What's tricky is figuring out how the statute says what you think it's supposed to say. > Are we on dangerous ground here? Is Dave liable for the opinions he > publishes on the tax laws? Should he be making disclaimers? Can he make > disclaimers when he explicitly states that he is a tax consultant?? etc. Given that I've publicly stated my qualifications as a lawyer and a tax expert, yes, if I give advice that suggests people should act on it, I might well be liable. I try to make sure to qualify my public statements so that they give general information rather than specific advice. I stated in my first posting of tax tips, a while back, that the tips were for general advice only and that a professional should be consulted on specific problems. I would think I'm in exactly the same position as any tax expert who writes for a newspaper. Of course, when I give people specific advice, for a fee, that's another matter entirely. Then they're entitled to expect, if not perfection, at least a standard of care appropriate for tax experts giving advice for a fee. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave