The Honourable Martin Cauchon, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

(a Postage-free address)

Dear Martin

I have a severe problem concerning the CCRA and regulations defining the meaning of 'spouse' as regards tax deductions for child support.

Let me give a brief history of the situation. In 1988 I became separated from a common-law relationship and began VOLUNTARILY paying child support according to a simple written agreement with my ex. I won't call her my 'spouse' because a poorly-written clause in the Income Tax Act says that despite having children with her, and for a time doing all the 'normal' (according to who?) fatherhood things, she was not my 'spouse'. To make a long story short, I claimed the payments on my taxes, only to be disallowed the deduction because I had not been ordered by a court to do so. The point of contention was that because I was not married to the mother, I would have to undergo the humiliation of the legal system. Married couples at the time could, on the other hand, make a verbal agreement and the father get the deduction. I fought it on the basis of the clause being prejudicial. After much buck-passing on the part of the then-ministers of Revenue and Finance (Mr.'s. Jellinek and Wilson) I managed to win my case and be allowed the deduction. It took some doing. Since 1991 I had been claiming the deduction, and in 1997 when the law concerning agreements was changed, we (my un-spouse and myself) decided not to renegotiate our agreement, which, supposedly, continued to allow my deduction after 1997.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, I found myself fighting the issue again, and retroactively! I seems that between 1994 and 1997, in a mad dash to get caught up on some serious arrears in my support payments, I neglected (and boy, was that a mistake) to submit a tax return for the years 1992-1997. According to some obscure and obfuscating loophole in the Tax Act, that group of returns could be treated by the CCRA as being a single year, allowing some overzealous assessor in Winnipeg the opportunity to reassess me for all of those years. For some reason they decided that despite having a notarized agreement (a compromise condition imposed in 1990 by RevCan in order for me to make a claim), all was null and void, and now I was not allowed the deduction. Suddenly, I was faced with a lump-sum reassessment of some 18 thousand dollars, plus interest and penalties, payable NOW.

I took the issue to tax court. I lost. Presently, I 'owe' CCRA 28 thousand dollars. And they just keep pouring it on. I work in the petroleum industry. I have a decent living, fortunately. But, 1n 1998-1999, the industry took a downturn, and my income followed it down. I got into arrears with my ex, again. Now this. It's like a huge weight. I told the collectors to 'get in line' as regards the payment of this 'debt'. The CCRA seems to think that they can just assess people at will, and get the money immediately, accompanying their demands with a flurry of not-so-veiled threats. I have worked myself to the bone this year, with all extra cash going to serve an enormous debt accrued, child support, credit cards, bills, mortgage. Then this reassessment, and the INSULT of being told, in a courtroom, that my children are bastards, because, the Government deems their parents unworthy as 'spouses'. My kids are not illegitimate, I'm afraid. I love them dearly, and no bloody zealot in a collections department is going to legislate that away.

In his judgement, the Tax Court judge stated that the clause definings 'spouse' are obscure, poorly-written, and can lead to a plaintiff having unrealistic expectations of winning a case against the CCRA!! Nonetheless, he rolled over and ruled against me, proving his own point that the clause could be interpreted any old way one chooses. And now I'm paying for it. For a second go-round. An issue that I thought was over-and-done-with a decade ago, reappears. So, here I am fighting it again. To no avail? I certainly hope not! What gives the Bureaucrat the privilege of deciding whether I am a good or bad father, indeed, whether I was a 'spouse'? All the details, a relationship, a coupling, two births, two young lives already scarred by their parent's separation, cast aside callously by someone in a back room whose moral code makes them think they have the right to dictate who and who does not qualify as someone's significant other. And this in the face of all the real 'bastards' who were married and never pay a cent, and get away with it. And before one makes the rhetorical statement that my tax dollar pays for the enforcement of support laws, bollox! Write laws with teeth, not sniggling little clauses that essentially ruin honest people's lives.

I am fortunate in more ways than I can list…I get along with the kid's mom. I have the means (gained through exercising my intelligence and hard work) to support my children. I also have the desire to. I have access to my children whenever I want. No court in this land could dictate to me whether that would happen or not. Both me and my ex-un-spouse are furious at this whole debacle. Anyone with any common sense wonders why this is even an issue. But it is, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The CCRA's regulations have the effect of saying 'we didn't tell you whether you could be a legitimate father or not, so we are going to punish you for it'. Enough!

What will it take to put a stop to this? Surely you can see how damaging this issue has been, not only to myself, but also to the children. The amount I owe is approximately equal to arrears accumulated in the lean years, and telling their mother that CCRA gets their fix first doesn't wash with anybody of mind and decency. The assessment is a heinous tax grab, pure and simple. The CCRA website says it is there to "serve you better". They are certainly better at serving threats, for sure. But how they can call this particular case 'serving' in any capacity escapes logic. I was told, flatly, that because I won my case by fighting it with Parliamentarians, and winning, it was not legally valid, and that the decision could be rescinded at any time. Methinks because a Conservative made the Decision, and a Liberal didn't like it.

And what, pray tell, do we have a House of Commons for, if it is not to change legislation that stinks? And pray tell, what kind of system allows a junior assessor to decide the fate of how these laws are enforced?

This letter demands a response from you, Honorable Minister. In the interest of 'serving', I might add. Your Prime Minister seems to pride himself in his folksy approach to governing, so here is a disgruntled 'folk' making his point. I simply want to know, what, besides saying "we are concerned" or "we are looking into it", are you going to actually DO about this glaringly unfair situation? And please, don't scurry for cover behind that little clause. It is not big enough to hide you.

Yours Truly

Michael Bromley, Ph.D.
Calgary

BACK