38e12103
XPost: nf.general, hfx.general, tor.general
From: Dydd.Iau.march4th@AD.2010
In article <8cb068ed-0c4a-4e9f-a6fc-00cbbd3b9295@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Alan Baggett wrote:
>Canada Revenue Agency Loses in Small Claims Court :CRA SOTW
>
>Taxman loses fight; is it a rare defeat?
>Farm family nearly gave up the ghost on clawback
>
>When Steinbach-area farmers Roland and Suzanne Chaput received a
>cheque for $19,599.28 from the federal government in 2005, they didn't
>waste any time putting it in the bank.
>
>They were told the payment was an interim payment from the Canadian
>Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) program for their 2004 crop.
>CAIS, which has since been replaced, had just been introduced in 2004,
>so farmers had no way of knowing how it all worked. Apparently that
>went for the administration, too.
>
>To be fair, administrators were under pressure from two fronts. The
>politicians wanted to get money flowing to hard-pressed farmers. Yet
>the program calculations were incredibly complex. The error rate was
>high.
>
>As it turned out, the Chaputs were among thousands of farmers who
>received overpayments averaging $10,000 between 2004 and 2007.
>
>As Canada's auditor general summarized in a scathing 2007 report, CAIS
>staff were operating according to "standards that emphasize the number
>of applications processed and adherence to procedures more than
>accuracy of payments."
>
>The CAIS administration sent them another letter in 2006 to say their
>2004 entitlement was only $10,860.66, less a $110 administrative fee.
>The government wanted $8,848.62 back, something the Chaputs were fully
>prepared to pay over time.
>
>They soon realized, however, that even though they weren't being asked
>to pay interest on the overpayment, the government's miscalculation
>was going to hit them in the wallet.
>When the Chaputs, who had two children living at home at the time,
>reported the CAIS payment on their 2005 income tax, it reduced their
>child-tax credit and GST rebate eligibility by an estimated
>$1,568.65.
>
>Although their income would be adjusted again in the year the funds
>were repaid, one of their children has since left home -- so they
>would no longer be eligible for those benefits.
>
>That didn't seem right to Chaput. But when he raised his concerns, he
>got the ping-pong treatment. CAIS told him it was the Canada Revenue
>Canada Agency's problem. CRA said it was up to CAIS.
>
>Frustrated, he asked his MP, Vic Toews, to intervene. In September
>2009, he received a letter from Toews' constituency office containing
>a letter from the minister of national revenue reiterating that the
>Chaputs' eligibility would be adjusted in the year the funds were
>repaid -- a response that blithely ignored the change in their family
>status.
>
>Chaput's accountant told him to give it up. His wife suggested it was
>time they moved on.
>But Chaput was fed up. On Dec. 1, 2009, he took the federal government
>to small claims court.
>
>In his handwritten affidavit, he claimed $1,568.65, the amount his
>accountant calculated he lost in child tax credits and GST rebates as
>a result of the CAIS overpayment.
>"We are prepared to recognize the overpayment as calculated by the
>CAIS administration and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but only to
>the extent, and in all fairness, that our request for the above-
>mentioned reduction is granted," he said.
>
>A hearing date was set for Feb. 19.
>
>But on Jan. 25, they received a letter from a lawyer with the
>Department of Justice offering to reduce their bill to the government
>by $1,568.65. "Having reviewed the details of your matter further with
>Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as well as Canada Revenue Agency, I
>have been authorized to propose a settlement on a without-prejudice
>basis," the letter, signed by a lawyer with the department's civil
>litigation and advisory services arm, says.
>
>In a nutshell, "without prejudice" means the government isn't
>admitting to any fault in this matter, only that it wants this case to
>go away. Could it be because giving Chaput his day in court might open
>a Pandora's box?
>
>There is a catch to the government's offer. Although the government is
>crediting him for the exact amount his accountant says he lost in his
>child tax credit and GST rebate, it is treating that payment as
>taxable income, which means he's still out about $300.
>
>Still, he was victorious. He isn't surprised. "To me, it was just
>plain common sense," he says.
>
>That's what's bothersome about his story. There is no denying due
>diligence to protect the integrity of programs is necessary in public
>service.
>
>But so is the recognition that public service is about serving the
>public.
>
>Why does it take the involvement of three government departments over
>a time span of five years to settle a four-figure dispute that any
>reasonable analysis would conclude is about common sense and
>fairness?
>
>How many other farmers find themselves in the same boat but give up
>due to bureaucratic fatigue?
>
>Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator. She can be reached
>at 792-4382 or by email: laura@fbcpublishing.com.
>
>Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition February 20,
>2010 B11
Good news for a change!!! Our "leaders" and the public take farming for
granted and worse, force farmers off their land financially.
Ask yourselves why a 1 pound T-bone steak costs over $10, while
the farming family that spends $300 to raise the animal to 1,500lbs
gets at *best*, $1000 at auction.
Green my arse Stephen Harper.
--
Master of Puppets We are all Rich Rosen
DENSA Life Achievement ø Am I the only one with half a brain?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
