Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Canada Revenue Agency
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Table 2 User Fees/External Fees
Table 2.1 a) User Fees Act (UFA) – Advance Income Tax Ruling Fee |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Performance Standard[Footnote 1]
|
The key service standard target is to issue advance income tax rulings
to taxpayers within an average of 60 calendar days of receipt of all essential information. The Income Tax
Rulings Directorate’s ( ITRD’s) Quality Management
System requires a telephone acknowledgement of receipt of the request within 24 business hours. Within 14
days, a review of the file for completeness is conducted and an acknowledgement letter, complete with a
contact name and request for any missing information (if required) is sent to the client. The client is
again contacted by telephone when the file is assigned for processing. Where a delay is unavoidable, clients
are contacted and delays are discussed with them.
|
||||
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|||||
|
For the past few years,
ITRD has been unable to meet its published service
standard for advance income tax rulings. Contributing factors were the increased complexity of files, diminished
resources, and staff attrition. ITRD has recently
compiled a framework to perform a comprehensive study of its performance in this area with a view towards
taking the necessary steps in gradually moving back towards its published service standard.
|
|||||
[Footnote 1]
Note:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
- Performance standard, if provided, may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Performance standard, if provided, may not respect all establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance result, if provided, is not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reductions for failed performance.
Note:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
- Performance standard, if provided, may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Performance standard, if provided, may not respect all establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance result, if provided, is not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reductions for failed performance.
Table 2.1 b) Policy on Service Standards for External Fees – Advance Income Tax Ruling Fee |
|
|---|---|
|
Service Standard[Footnote 1]
|
The key service standard target is to issue advance income tax rulings
to taxpayers within an average of 60 calendar days of receipt of all essential information. The Income Tax
Rulings Directorate’s ( ITRD’s) Quality Management
System requires a telephone acknowledgement of receipt of the request within 24 business hours. Within 14
days, a review of the file for completeness is conducted and an acknowledgement letter, complete with a
contact name and request for any missing information (if required) is sent to the client. The client is
again contacted by telephone when the file is assigned for processing. Where a delay is unavoidable, clients
are contacted and delays are discussed with them.
|
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|
|
Client satisfaction questionnaires were sent out to all advance income
tax ruling clients for a two-year period from October 2002 through October 2004. At that time, responding
clients from this group indicated a satisfaction rate in excess of 95%. More recently, client feedback has
been received informally during ITRD’s attendance
at major tax conferences. Generally, there is a very high degree of satisfaction with the quality of advance
income tax rulings although the clients would like to receive them faster.
|
|
|
For the past few years,
ITRD has been unable to meet its published service
standard for advance income tax rulings. Contributing factors were the increased complexity of files, diminished
resources, and staff attrition. ITRD has recently
compiled a framework to perform a comprehensive study of its performance in this area with a view towards
taking the necessary steps in gradually moving back towards its published service standard.
|
|
[Footnote 1]
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.
Table 2.2 a) User Fees Act (UFA) – Taxation Statistical Analyses and Data Processing Fee |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Performance Standard[Footnote 1]
|
|||||
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|||||
[Footnote 1] Note:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction
or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
- Performance standard, if provided, may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Performance standard, if provided, may not respect all establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance result, if provided, is not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reductions for failed performance.
Table 2.2 b) Policy on Service Standards for External Fees – Taxation Statistical Analyses and Data Processing Fee |
|
|---|---|
|
Service Standard[Footnote 1]
|
|
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|
[Footnote 1]
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.
Table 2.3 a) User Fees Act (UFA) – Access to Information Processing Fee |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Performance Standard[Footnote 1]
|
|||||
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|||||
[Footnote 1]
Note:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
- Performance standard, if provided, may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Performance standard, if provided, may not respect all establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance result, if provided, is not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reductions for failed performance.
Note:
According to prevailing legal opinion, where the corresponding fee introduction or most recent modification occurred prior to March 31, 2004 the:
- Performance standard, if provided, may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Performance standard, if provided, may not respect all establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance result, if provided, is not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reductions for failed performance.
Table 2.3 b) Policy on Service Standards for External Fees – Access to Information Processing Fee |
|
|---|---|
|
Service Standard[Footnote 1]
|
|
|
Performance Results[Footnote
1]
|
|
[Footnote 1]
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.
Note:
As established pursuant to the Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
- Service standards may not have received Parliamentary review;
- Service standards may not respect all performance standard establishment requirements under the User Fees Act (UFA) (e.g. international comparison; independent complaint address); and
- Performance results are not legally subject to UFA section 5.1 regarding fee reduction for failed performance.