Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canada Child tax benefit CCTB letter and female presumption

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes this is standard for CRA. For a household, the benefits are always paid to the female parent by default, unless otherwise informed.

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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...

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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!!)

                Comment


                • #9
                  They are not all evil, but they are fairly evil...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I disagree as well with pretty much the whole policy. I can understand why it defaults to the mother at birth as they give out (or used to, not sure if they still do) the forms to fill out for CCTB at the hospital when the child is born. When my kids were born there were piles of forms I needed to fill out and give back to them before I could leave with the new baby and this was one of them. Naturally, the forms were given to the mother as she was the patient.

                      I disagree that it should default to the female of the household, even if they don't have children of their own and are a step-parent to their spouse's child. That's just wrong and odd and I would love to know what this policy is based on.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                        I disagree as well with pretty much the whole policy. I can understand why it defaults to the mother at birth as they give out (or used to, not sure if they still do) the forms to fill out for CCTB at the hospital when the child is born. When my kids were born there were piles of forms I needed to fill out and give back to them before I could leave with the new baby and this was one of them. Naturally, the forms were given to the mother as she was the patient.

                        I disagree that it should default to the female of the household, even if they don't have children of their own and are a step-parent to their spouse's child. That's just wrong and odd and I would love to know what this policy is based on.
                        Good point sir!

                        *snicker*

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                          I disagree as well with pretty much the whole policy. I can understand why it defaults to the mother at birth as they give out (or used to, not sure if they still do) the forms to fill out for CCTB at the hospital when the child is born. When my kids were born there were piles of forms I needed to fill out and give back to them before I could leave with the new baby and this was one of them. Naturally, the forms were given to the mother as she was the patient.

                          I disagree that it should default to the female of the household, even if they don't have children of their own and are a step-parent to their spouse's child. That's just wrong and odd and I would love to know what this policy is based on.
                          It could be based on the vagina monologues, but that's just a guess.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by FamilyBlah View Post
                            It could be based on the vagina monologues, but that's just a guess.
                            Haha...I think it is based on 16th century culture when all women stayed at home to care for the family. I am sure it made sense back then.

                            Or the assumption could be that all men are drinking gamblers and they would just blow the benefit payments to fulfill their drinking and gambling desires.

                            In my household I receive the payments and yes my new wife had to sign the letter to allow me to continue to collect the payments for my son from previous marriage.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X