[ad_1]
In two decisions released earlier this month, the Tax Court of Canada ruled that most surrogacy expenses do not qualify for the medical expense credit
The opinions and recommendations are impartial and the products are selected independently. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission on purchases made through links on this page.
Content of the article
In two decisions released earlier this month, the Tax Court of Canada ruled that most surrogacy expenses do not qualify for the medical expense credit.
Publicity
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The first case involved a taxpayer who claimed a medical expense tax credit for just over $ 29,000 of medical expenses incurred in 2012, the bulk of which went to SCI Healthcare (SCI) in India. The taxpayer fertilized a donated egg and the embryo was then implanted into a surrogate mother in India.
The taxpayer claimed $ 1,400 for a trip to India and $ 400 for meals during his eight-day trip, explaining that he had traveled to India to undergo in vitro services provided by SCI because his sperm had been used in the creation of the embryo to be implanted in the surrogate mother.
Although the court ruled that her medical expenses and travel were indeed eligible for the medical expense credit, it found that none of the surrogate-related expenses were eligible. The reasoning was based on the definition of âpatientâ in the Tax Act.
Publicity
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
Under the rule, medical expenses âon behalf of the patient who needs an (n)⦠organ transplantâ are eligible for the credit. While an earlier case concluded that an embryo transplant is, in fact, an organ transplant for the purposes of this rule, this decision was not followed in two subsequent cases. Each of these cases concluded that the rule does not apply to surrogacy arrangements because the surrogate mother receiving the transplant is not the “patient” who is defined for purposes of the Tax Act as. the taxpayer, his or her spouse or partner and dependents.
-
A day at the spa, alcohol, Magic Bullet blenders: when you might be pushing the limits of tax deductibility
-
When moving expenses are a tax deduction, and when they are not
Publicity
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The second case involved a taxpayer who claimed $ 81,000 in medical expenses in his return, of which $ 64,000 was related to the indemnity paid and the surrogate’s medical expenses. In vitro expenses of $ 17,000 incurred by the taxpayer were authorized.
After being denied the expenses based on the above reasoning, the taxpayer in this case also attempted to argue that same-sex couples are discriminated against because of the tax rules. According to her argument, “they deserve the same treatment as heterosexual couples and same-sex women who have the option of claiming the medical expense tax credit for in vitro fertilization treatments … because male couples homosexuals do not have ovaries to produce eggs and uteri. in order to procreate a fetus, they have to work with surrogate mothers, which same-sex heterosexual and female couples do not have to do.
Publicity
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The question before the Court was therefore whether the fact that the surrogacy expenses were not deductible violated the anti-discrimination rule in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Supreme Court has said that to be successful with a discrimination argument, you must show “unequal treatment under the law – specifically that (you) … did not receive a benefit that the law intended … or (you were) with a burden the law didn’t put it on someone else.
In that case, the Tax Court judge ruled that there was no discrimination âsince surrogacy expenses are systematically non-deductible for anyone, whether they are heterosexual couples, same-sex female couples or same-sex male couples⦠The burden imposed by law on same-sex male couples is no greater than that imposed on anyone else.
Jamie Golombek is Managing Director, Tax and Estate Planning at CIBC Wealth Advisory Services in Toronto.
Publicity
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
[ad_2]