Revamp the Disability Tax Credit

August 12, 2021
  • Recently, the National Health and Medical Research Council has received a storm of criticism for its In home care services Melbourne. The Canadian government refuses health care benefits to those who have been disabled by economic circumstances. On the one hand, the United States or the European Union provide generous disability care programs to those who are in difficult financial situations. Why is that so? There are two reasons, both philosophical in nature.

Revamp the Disability Tax Credit

The first reason is that disability care components of the Canadian plan would interfere with the provision of health care to some extent with the ability of Canada’s provinces to provide health services to its citizens. Arguments are advanced that the provinces cannot afford health care expansion while maintaining funding for existing health care plans. This would result in reductions in the quality and service delivery for Canadian residents. If such an argument had been put forth before the United States and the EU, the answer would have been quite different.

Revamp the Disability Tax Credit

The second reason concerns the manner in which Canada’s government will implement the Disability Discrimination Act. The United States and the EU treat everyone with disabilities the same way, but Canada’s National Occupational Safety and Health Act treats people with disabilities differently. Canada’s proposed component on disability care would require that persons with permanent and total disabilities be given the same opportunities as those who are working age. The proposal would also require the provision of a workplace for persons with disabilities. Although this requirement would not impact employees employed by Canadian employers, it would force them to make changes in their businesses to ensure that persons with disabilities have access work.

Revamp the Disability Tax Credit

An alternative argument advanced is that the proposed changes to the Canada Revenue Agency’s operating procedures amount to a violation of the universal ability of the members of the Forum. This view can be easily explained by looking at the debate from the Canadian Human Resources Department’s perspective. The Canadian Human Resources Department has determined, at this time, that OSHA provisions regarding children and disability care are only applicable to employees of private employers. These employers include restaurants, hotels, and certain types shops. Dr. Olga Pavlova is a professor at Michigan State University School of Nursing and has raised concerns about the provision.

Revamp the Disability Tax Credit

According to Dr. Pavlova, there are three ways in which the provision could be interpreted. It could be that any disability care component intended to apply to employees at a private company is illegal under the Canada Revenue Agency Act. The Winter Fuel Payment regulation is a regulatory error. This is because the necessary regulatory changes were already in the Canada Revenue Agency Act. It can also be argued, that the third condition in the provision was not intended and therefore is irrelevant to assessing the meaning.Assuming that the question regarding the intention of the provision is correct, it can be concluded that Dr. Devane’s contention is based upon an incorrect reading of tax credit regulations. Dr. Devane states that the tax credit would not be applicable to providers who provide child care or disability care if the condition were to be read as only covering child care and disabled care. Dr. Devane submitted to the committee that she had heard from many people who opposed the inclusion a poverty supplement to this plan. Consequently, the consensus was that a review of the tax credit regulations should be confined to the provision concerning child care and disability care.

The tax credit would be modified by adding the term “childcare” to the list eligible qualifying expenses for the tax credit for working families. As we have already stated, the proposed amendment would allow for the child care expense being applied to all eligible expenses incurred to care for a child or children. The Act’s purpose is clarified by adding the word “child”, It would seem to follow that if the tax credit is to be used for child care, then the expenditure incurred on child care must be within the context of child care. In that case, the term ‘child care’ would include all educational expenses that are related to educating a child, whether that child is being attended by someone else or not.

The amendment would also eliminate the requirement that educational expenses of non-custodial parents be eligible for tax relief (the fuel poverty limit). The purpose of this is to ensure that there is consistency with the application of the Act between custodial and non-custodial parents. That consistency would, in my opinion, be promoted by ensuring that the same requirements of the Act are met. This could be accomplished by including the term “Fuel Poverty Line” in the definition for “child care”.