Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 01:35 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21
agreatdad is on a distinguished road
Default Canada Child tax benefit CCTB letter and female presumption

I recently received a letter from the CRA regarding the Canada child tax benefit and the female presumption rule.

Background
  • divorced several years
  • GF and I bought a house and began living togther on Dec 20 2011
  • 2011 taxes I had to disclosed that on Dec31 2011 I was in a common law relationship
  • I have 2 kids 8,13
  • She has no kids
Today my GF receive a letter from the CRA asking if she was the person primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of my kids and if so she is to sign a form and return to the CRA. This letter also asked to provide proof of citizenship which I find odd as we are both Canada citizens

I also received a letter asking to provide proof of citizenship which again I find odd since I was born in Canada and so were my parents their parents and so on.

If we don't send in this letter the CRA will apply the female presumption rule.

Anyone see this before?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,592
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by agreatdad View Post
I recently received a letter from the CRA regarding the Canada child tax benefit and the female presumption rule.

Background
  • divorced several years
  • GF and I bought a house and began living togther on Dec 20 2011
  • 2011 taxes I had to disclosed that on Dec31 2011 I was in a common law relationship
  • I have 2 kids 8,13
  • She has no kids
Today my GF receive a letter from the CRA asking if she was the person primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of my kids and if so she is to sign a form and return to the CRA. This letter also asked to provide proof of citizenship which I find odd as we are both Canada citizens

I also received a letter asking to provide proof of citizenship which again I find odd since I was born in Canada and so were my parents their parents and so on.

If we don't send in this letter the CRA will apply the female presumption rule.

Anyone see this before?
yes
you girl friend will have to sign on that form that you are primary responsible for kids. I went through this recently.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 342
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes this is standard for CRA. For a household, the benefits are always paid to the female parent by default, unless otherwise informed.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 216
FamilyBlah is on a distinguished road
Default

How can there be a presumption based on gender?

Well, I guess technically there could be a presumption based on eye-colour.

What I'm really asking is; how is this not discriminatory?

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
adjective /disˈkrimənəˌtôrē/ 

Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex
- discriminatory employment practices
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,592
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
Yes this is standard for CRA. For a household, the benefits are always paid to the female parent by default, unless otherwise informed.
standard insulting latter from CRA.

after I replied to that letter (attaching whole 606 paragraphs reasons for judgment from my trial) they not only put child in question under my name for benefits but also my step daughter (what I never asked to do)

crazy...
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,592
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FamilyBlah View Post
How can there be a presumption based on gender?

Well, I guess technically there could be a presumption based on eye-colour.

What I'm really asking is; how is this not discriminatory?

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
adjective /disˈkrimənəˌtôrē/ 

Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex
- discriminatory employment practices
try to call CRA and ask. Here is exact wording from a letter

Quote:
Please note, when a male and a female parent both live in the same home, the female parent is presumed to be the person primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the children.

If the male parent is the person who is primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the children, the female parent must inform us of this in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 342
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

It's CRA, they make up whatever rules they want regardless of logic or legality.

For the same reason they do NOT recognize legal separation dates between divorcing spouses, unlike everyone else in the entire world.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 968
ddol1 is on a distinguished road
Default

yes. I actually had similar not once but three seperate times all for the same reason. I took the time to find out why were they doing this to me, I have enough confusion in my life! CRA's answer was, "This is standard proceedure when the CRA has conflicting information or info that doesn't make sense according to the rules that are in place for the CRA to follow. In my case it was my STBX continually giving false or misleading information (she changed her name back to her maiden one month after asking for a divorce, then she claimed she was divorced and then I do not know what else but in fact we according to the CRA were still living under the same roof and did not have a court ordered divorce so nothing really changed in their eyes.

They just wanted me to confirm the facts and circumstance of what was happening - the third time they acknowledged they were putting a note in her file, matching my file and they have not asked me since then. In the end, the CRA just want to get your circumstance straight to ensure you are recieving any benefit in which you are legally due. (CRA is not all evil as some would believe!!)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 342
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

They are not all evil, but they are fairly evil...
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,592
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddol1 View Post
yes. I actually had similar not once but three seperate times all for the same reason. I took the time to find out why were they doing this to me, I have enough confusion in my life! CRA's answer was, "This is standard proceedure when the CRA has conflicting information or info that doesn't make sense according to the rules that are in place for the CRA to follow. In my case it was my STBX continually giving false or misleading information (she changed her name back to her maiden one month after asking for a divorce, then she claimed she was divorced and then I do not know what else but in fact we according to the CRA were still living under the same roof and did not have a court ordered divorce so nothing really changed in their eyes.

They just wanted me to confirm the facts and circumstance of what was happening - the third time they acknowledged they were putting a note in her file, matching my file and they have not asked me since then. In the end, the CRA just want to get your circumstance straight to ensure you are recieving any benefit in which you are legally due. (CRA is not all evil as some would believe!!)
they still could be more diplomatic in their letter and/or politically correct. I can understand why in hospital when child is born it get's mother's last name and than you need to change it but why this is by default with CRA kind of unclear for me - default here should be no default.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 AM.