Multi-Employer Benefit Plan Council of Canada

Submissions

Submissions of the Multi-Employer Benefit Plan Council of Canada Draft Legislative Proposals – Conversion of Health and Welfare Trusts

July 29, 2019
Via E-Mail (hwt-consultation-fsbe@canada.ca)
Tax Legislation Division
Department of Finance
90 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G5
Attention: Andrew Donelle, Director, Deferred Income Plans

Lori Merrigan, Expert Advisor

Dear Mr. Donelle and Ms. Merrigan:
Re: Submissions of the Multi-Employer Benefit Plan Council of Canada
Draft Legislative Proposals – Conversion of Health and Welfare Trusts

The Multi-Employer Benefit Plan Council of Canada (MEBCO) is a non-profit corporation representing the interests of Canadian multi-employer pension and benefit plans.

We are writing to submit our comments and recommendations with respect to the transitional rules and proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act (the "Act") to govern the phase-out and conversion of Health and Welfare Trusts (HWTs) to Employee Life and Health Trusts (ELHTs), as proposed in the draft legislative amendments and described in the Backgrounder released by the Department of Finance on May 27, 2019 (the "Proposed Amendments").

MEBCO has previously made several submissions to the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA") and the Department of Finance ("Finance") regarding the regulation of HWTs, including its submission of May 7, 2018 in response to the 2018 Budget announcement regarding the phase-out of the HWT rules and ELHT conversion. MEBCO appreciates the thorough consultation process engaged in by Finance and thoughtful consideration given to the issues identified in its 2018 submission. The Proposed Amendments address "substantially all" of MEBCO’s concerns regarding the unique implications of the CRA HWT policy and the ELHT rules on multi-employer benefit plans.

MEBCO and its members also appreciate the Government's commitment to a further consultation process considering additional issues identified by MEBCO and other stakeholders relating to other eligibility conditions for ELHT. These issues remain very important to MEBCO members and we are pleased to set out our comments below for your consideration and we welcome a further opportunity to meet and discuss these issues with you during your consultation process.

About MEBCO

MEBCO was established in 1992 to represent the interests of multi-employer benefit plans (MEPs) in Canada. MEBCO advocates on behalf of all stakeholders involved with MEPs, including union and employer trustees, independent and professional trustees, professional third party administrators, non-profit or “in house” plan administrators and professionals including actuaries, benefit consultants, lawyers, investment managers, and chartered professional accountants.

MEBCO’s Board of Directors is composed of volunteer representatives of these groups, and is responsible for identifying, addressing, and  advocating with respect to all issues impacting multi-employer plans in Canada.

Background on Multi-Employer Plans

Multi-employer plans are essential to over one million workers and their families in industries including construction, food service, retail, hotel and restaurant, graphic arts, garment manufacturing, security, textiles, transportation and entertainment. MEPs are a response to the difficulties of delivering quality health care services, disability and other income replacement benefits and life insurance to workers and their families in industries typified by small employers and mobile work forces. These plans ensure that seamless benefit coverage is provided to workers and their families as they move from one contributing employer to the next. This seamless coverage is especially important in mobile and/or seasonal industries where it is often expected that workers will be employed by multiple employers in a single year and/or may experience significant periods of non-employment or disability. In these industries, it is not uncommon for a worker to be employed by one employer for a matter of days or weeks before moving on to a different project with a different employer. A centralized MEP ensures these workers have access to necessary benefit coverage  regardless of the sometimes intermittent nature of these work relationships.

In addition to providing seamless benefit coverage, MEPs are economically efficient in the sense of providing economies of scale by bringing together large numbers of smaller employers who receive financial savings in respect to administration and the purchasing of benefits. In other words, the pooling of collectively bargained contributions in these industries is beneficial both to workers and smaller employers who may wish to extend benefit coverage to their workers.

MEPs are generally administered by an independent board of trustees, comprised of an equal number of trustees appointed by the participating union or unions and employer bargaining associations. As with any trust, the MEP trustees owe a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries, not the sponsoring employers or unions. The trustees do not determine the contribution rates, which are negotiated between the employers and the unions as part of the collective bargaining process. The contribution rates are typically based on hours worked.

MEPs deliver health and welfare benefits and services that are supplementary to publically funded health care and social security programs through privately funded vehicles. Without MEPs, millions of Canadians would not have access to these supplementary benefits, the cost of which would otherwise be unaffordable and may ultimately be borne by public programs. 

Part I. Comments on Legislative Proposal re: HWT Conversion to ELHTs

1. Prescribed Form of Election

MEBCO believes that the conversion rules included in the Proposed Amendments substantially addresses MEBCO's primary recommendation that the required conversation should be a simple process with minimal cost and without tax consequences. MEBCO has some concern with respect to prescribed form of election as described in the Backgrounder for 2019, which requires HWTs to notify the CRA of "any transfer or property".

MEBCO recommends that the requirement to list specific property to be transferred, eliminated or clarified. Given that all property of the HWT will be reported on the ELHT T3 Returns, MEBCO believes this additional requirement is unnecessary.

2. Trust Governance

The Proposed Amendments include a proposal to modify paragraph 144.1(2)(i) with respect to the composition of the board of trustees governing an ELHT. The proposal is to replace the existing provision with a requirement that a majority of trustees must deal at arm's length with each participating employer.

As many MEBCO MEP member plans are jointly trusteed with an equal number of union and employer appointed trustees, MEBCO is concerned that the current iteration of the governance requirement may not be met to the extent that employer appointees to a jointly trusteed board are considered not to be dealing at arm's length with the participating employers. For a jointly trusteed board with equal representation by employer and employee representatives, there is no concern that the board would not be independent of the participating employers, particularly in the context of MEPs.

MEBCO recommends that the conditions specified in paragraph 144.1(2)(i) be revised to provide that the trustees who do not deal at arm's length with the participating employers must not constitute the majority of the trustees of the trust.

3. MEP Rules – Deductible Contributions

MEBCO is pleased that Finance has addressed its concerns relating to special rules applicable to multi-employer plans. The proposed amendments broadening the scope of these provisions to all collectively bargained plans regardless of the number of participating employers and where some members may participate who are covered under a participation agreement, substantially address the concerns raised by MEBCO in its 2018 submission. There remain a few points we think warrant further consideration.

(a) SMEPP Rules

MEBCO appreciates Finance's recognition of its position that the SMEPP criteria applied in the pension context were not appropriate for HWT MEPs, many of which may not have met the 15 employer/10% mobility test. We note however, that one element of the SMEPP rules has been retained in the proposed amendments, which is the requirement in proposed paragraph 144.1(6)(b) that the contributions must be determined by reference to the number of hours worked or some other measure specific to the employee. MEBCO's concern is that the CRA has interpreted this requirement narrowly in the SMEPP context taking the view that multi-employer pension plans that provided for contributions based on a percentage of salary did not meet the SMEPP conditions.

MEBCO is also concerned that this requirement may exclude MEPs in industries where employees covered by a collective agreement are compensated on a "piece work" basis rather than an hours worked basis.

As MEBCO discussed in its 2018 submission, the policy rationale for applying the SMEPP rules to a Registered Pension Plan is to address the particular difficulties that arise calculating a pension adjustment ("PA"), and tracking PA limits, in large multi-employer plans in which employers may have no relationship with each other. The SMEPP rules are intended to address specific technical PA issues that apply only in the context of Registered Plans, and that have no bearing on health and welfare benefits.1

The rationale for section 144.1(6) is entirely different, as it is intended to ensure contributions negotiated between employers and arms' length trade unions are deductible even where they may not precisely reflect the cost of providing benefits in any given year. This is because contribution rates negotiated through collective bargaining can usually only be addressed every three to five years, and cannot vary at any given time to reflect the funded status of the trust. Section 144.1(6) therefore ensures that a multi-employer collectively bargained plan can provide for employer deductions on contributions despite this potential temporary mismatch, thus reflecting the reality of the collective bargaining context in which these trusts operate.

The rational equally applies to collectively bargained plans where the contribution may be based on a percentage of salary or in the context of employees who are paid based on a piece work.

However, as noted, the CRA has in the context of the SMEPP rules, taken the position that contributions based on salary are not based on a measure that is specific to each employee. It is not clear how the CRA would apply these requirements in the context of employees compensated based on a number of units installed (piece work).

MEBCO therefore recommends that paragraph 144.1(6)(b) be deleted entirely and the deductibility rules be applied to any contribution under a collective agreement that meets the requirements of paragraph 144.1(6)(a), subject to the comment below.

(b) Participation Agreements

The other concern relates to the language used in paragraph 144.1(6)(a) that provides that the contribution must be made to the trust "under a collective bargaining agreement, or a participation agreement in respect of the collective bargaining agreement..." While many participation agreements will specifically reference one or more collective agreements that may be related to a plan, that is not always the case. Participation agreements may simply set out a contribution rate, which is the same as the rate under one or more applicable collective agreements, or may specify a rate based on the cost of extending benefits to participants who are not covered by a collective agreement, without incorporating or referencing any specific collective agreements.

The use of the phrase "in respect of a collective bargaining agreement" may unnecessarily exclude forms of participation agreements, which should otherwise be acceptable. For example, in the MEP context it is common for employees of the sponsoring union to participate in a benefits trust pursuant to a participation agreement. As these union employees are not bound to the same collective agreements as union members, the participation agreement may not be considered "in respect of a collective bargaining agreement."

MEBCO recommends that a broad definition of "participation agreement" be added, which can require that the contributions be substantially the same as the contributions under the applicable collective agreements. In the alternative, the language in paragraph 144.1(6)(a) should be revised to refer to a "participation agreement in respect of the trust" or a "participation agreement to which the trust is bound".

This would permit participation of the sponsoring unions with respect to their employees and allow participating employers to include non-bargaining unit staff in the same plan on a cost effective basis.

4. Exclusion of Non-Employees

(a) Retirees, Disabled Members and Unemployed

MEBCO is satisfied with the clarity provided in the Proposed Amendments that address the concerns raised by MEBCO regarding eligibility of retirees, temporarily unemployed or disabled members, and surviving spouses of active, formerly active or retired members.

(b) Employment Status Uncertain or Unknown

MEBCO appreciates the consideration of this issue, particularly Finance'sunderstanding of the position and role of the HWT/ELHT trustees with respect to the "employee" classification of the trusts' beneficiaries. However, we are concerned with the proposal to the extent that it imposes a vague test with extremely adverse tax consequences if a CRA auditor determines that a trustee or trustees knew or ought to have known, in even one case, that a covered participant is/was not an employee for purposes of the ITA.

As we discussed in the 2018 Submission, MEPs may cover numerous individuals who are members of a participating union and engaged in the industry covered by the MEP, who may or may not be considered “employees” by the CRA, but whose employment status is not known to the MEP trustees. MEP trustees may have no information regarding the nature of the working relationship or ability to determine employment status, but risk losing ELHT qualification on conversion if any one individual is deemed by the CRA or a court to be a non-employee.

Workers in many industries who are members of a participating union and/or working under a collective agreement may be identified or treated as independent contractors, dependent contractors, owner operators and in some cases, may establish a personal services corporation. In all cases, contributions are remitted on behalf of the individual members by participating employers bound under collective agreements or participation agreements and eligibility is generally tied to union membership. In these industries, there is little rationale to tie benefit coverage in multi-employer ELHTs to “employee” status.

The determination as to whether a given worker is an “employee” is difficult to make, even if the trustees had the necessary information about the various working relationships. Many workers may exhibit indicia of both employee/independent contractor status. The relative degree of these indicia may vary depending on the characteristics of the job and the relationship with a particular employer. In other words, “employee” status may be, at best, unclear, and, at worst, may vary over time. Regardless of status, these workers are subject to the same vulnerability and economic dependence as employees at various points in their work relationships. While a piece worker in the roofing industry, for instance, may work for multiple employers in the same year on a contract basis, he or she may be highly economically dependent on one employer/client at any given time – and it is unpredictable what percentage of the worker’s year may be spent on each project. These workers may be classified as “dependent contractors” under provincial labour legislation (in essence ‘employees’ who may be bound to a collective agreement), adding further uncertainty to their status as “employees” for ITA purposes.

Inclusion of these members in a plan established primarily for employees does not offend the tax policy guiding the exclusion. MEPs are not vehicles that could be used by shareholders or business owners to tax shelter income or otherwise receive an unfair tax advantage. In fact, the inclusion of the above beneficiaries supports the policy rationale favouring the establishment of MEPs to provide health benefits and insurance to workers and their dependants who may not be able to purchase coverage on their own behalf – thus relieving a potential burden on Canada’s social safety net.

Given the complex factual and legal analysis required to determine employment status on an annual basis, the application of the "ought to know" standard applied to each trustee on a board of trustees and with respect to every member in a plan that may include thousands of members, is unworkable. Moreover, given that the trust would lose all of its deductions even if it is determined that one trustee knew or ought to have known that one member did not qualify as an employee, it is highly inequitable to the other beneficiaries of the trust who could be affected by the status of a single member.

MEBCO recommends that the definition of eligible beneficiary for an ELHT be extended to include any individual who is a member, or employee of a participating union or, on whose behalf contributions are required to be remitted to the MEP by a participating employer pursuant to a collective agreement or participation agreement. In the alternative, the proposed amendment should be revised to limit the loss of the ELHT tax deduction to the contributions made in respect of the specific employees and the exclusion be solely based on a definitive ruling by the CRA or the Tax Court of Canada confirming that an individual was not an employee for ITA purposes.

5. Employee-Pay-All LTD Plans

Many multi-employer benefit plans include LTD benefits where the employees pay all of the contributions, commonly referred to as "employee-pay-all plans". The characteristics of these plans are unique in that they are not funded by employer contributions and, while not explicit in the Act, the benefits paid are not taxable to the employee, consistent with the fact that the benefits are funded by employee after tax contributions.

In the past, the CRA's position has been that these employee-pay-all LTD benefits were not eligible HWT benefits and explicitly stated at least in one technical interpretation that they did not qualify as "designated employee benefits" under the ELHT provisions.2

It appears with the release of the HWT Income Tax Folio, that the CRA modified this view at least with respect to HWTs, where it states that HWTs are permitted to administer employee-pay-all LTD benefits.3

However, the HWT rules require that the trust also deliver other eligible benefits for which employers do make contributions.

The status of the employee-pay-all benefits and ELHT eligibility is unclear under the ELHT rules as they are proposed to be amended in the draft legislation.

It is MEBCO's view that these benefits are clearly of a type falling into the classification of "group sickness or accident insurance plan" and should be treated in all respects as eligible designated employee benefits regardless of the source of funding, including for ELHTs established solely to provide employee-pay-all disability benefits, which is not uncommon, particularly for collectively bargained plans in the public and broader public sectors.

With the proposed addition of a definition for "participating employer" for the prohibited investment tax rules in Part XI.5, which ties ELHT eligibility to the existence and participation of an employer who is making (or has made) contributions to the ELHT, the status of these employee-pay-all plans under the ELHT rules is uncertain.

MEBCO recommends that the proposed amendments be modified to clarify that employee-pay-all plans be deemed to qualify as designated employee benefits, even when these benefits are the only benefits provided by the trust.

6. Related Party Investment Restrictions

Paragraph 144.1(2)(h) of the ITA prohibits investments and loans to a participating employer and any entity related to a participating employer.

Given that MEPs may include hundreds, in some cases thousands, of participating employers, monitoring and compliance with these rules is virtually impossible. This is particularly the case with HWT MEPs, which commonly invest in pooled vehicles with little knowledge or control over the underlying investments, which may, without the trustees’ knowledge, include some investment in a participating employer or related entity. With respect to multi-employer pension plans, this unique concern has been acknowledged by provincial and federal regulations and is addressed through various exemptions for multi-employer plans under the ITA and federal pension legislation.4

A similar exemption should be added to the ELHT provisions particularly for MEP ELHTs.

The proposed amendment to these rules reflecting the Department of Finance Comfort Letter dated December 19, 2012 proposing a 50% refundable tax is not an acceptable resolution to this concern.

MEBCO recommends that s. 144.1(2) be amended to exempt MEPs, similar to the exemption in place for multi-employer pension plans in the prohibited investment provisions related to registered pension plans.

Part II. Recommendations Regarding Additional ELHT Issues under Consideration

In the Backgrounder, Finance requested further input on other issues relating to ELHTs that are under consideration, as follows:

  • the types of benefits that currently qualify as "designated employee benefits" under an Employee Life and Health Trust and whether other benefits should be considered;
  • expanding the scope of the Private Health Services Plan component of designated employee benefits;
  • the use of Employee Life and Health Trust rules to provide benefits to "key employees" as defined in subsection 144.1(1) of the Act, including the use of self-insured arrangements; and
  • the rules related to carry back and carry forward of non-capital losses under Employee Life and Health Trusts.

In our submission below, we address and make recommendations on these issues.

7. Expanding Eligibility to include Health and Wellness and Employee Assistance Programs

As we set out in the 2018 submission, since the CRA HWT policy was first introduced over 50 years ago, health and welfare programs have developed substantially in response to health care and social security needs of Canadians. Developed health and welfare programs delivered by MEPs will typically include Member Assistance Plans, commonly referred to outside of the MEP context as Employee Assistance Plans ("EAPs") and/or "health and wellness plans", which address some critical health care issues, such as the growing demand for services related to mental health issues and drug and alcohol addiction. These programs successfully target and enhance preventative health care initiatives that are proven to provide better health outcomes and reduce the economic cost to the public health care system. EAP programs, by identifying and targeting underlying health issues, such as mental health and addiction, provide important interventions and ought to be viewed as part of a broader effective health care policy. Expanding this coverage will save both money and lives.

MEPs may provide various EAP or health and wellness benefits as part of the general benefit package or through health care or flexible benefit spending accounts that provide reimbursements to members for a variety of benefits that are commonly referred to as "health and wellness" benefits. Many of the benefits provided under a health and wellness program provide reimbursement for expenses that qualify for the Medical Expense Tax Credit ("METC"). For example, potentially eligible expenses typically include various forms of counselling, including grief, stress, depression/anxiety, and crisis counselling provided by an authorized medical practitioner. For some programs and services, eligibility may not be clear such as virtual healthcare programs, online cognitive therapy counselling, telemedicine and disease or pain management counselling and advice.

However, some of the services and benefits under health and wellness or EAP programs, which are incidental and related to health care and healthy lifestyles, may not qualify. In fact, while health and wellness benefits provide preventative health coverage, and promote healthy lifestyles generally, they may not be eligible for the METC, and therefore not be eligible to be provided as a "designated employee benefit" despite the benefits have a direct impact member health and on the cost of tax assisted health care benefits.

Another common benefit delivered by MEPs is wage loss replacement for unpaid bereavement leaves. Bereavement benefits offset a portion of the loss of income for covered members who must take time off. The limits and eligibility conditions are well defined to avoid abuse and limits liability similar to disability benefits, which many MEPs include. While these benefits may not qualify as the type of wage loss replacement benefit currently accepted as an eligible HWT benefit under CRA policy, it fulfills a very similar wage protection insurance and social welfare purpose as other eligible benefits, such as short-term disability benefits.

Given the interconnection and complimentary purpose of these types of programs, they are often delivered and administered together with health care and wage loss replacement plans under a health and welfare trust structure. The CRA Interpretation Bulletins recognized this reality, but only permitted these types of programs to be administered under the same health and welfare trust if the contributions, expenses and benefits were accounted for separately. Effectively these rules required HWTs to maintain a separate sub-trust fund.

We believe it is time to legislatively recognize that these programs should be eligible as part of the benefits provided and administered under an ELHT, without any separate accounting or administration, other than the accounting and reporting for taxable and non-taxable benefits, which HWTs already do for the eligible HWT benefits. We note that single employer plans can provide an unlimited range of employee benefits; including EAP, health and wellness; bereavement leave and death benefits, directly to their employees, but employees covered by an HWT or ELHT cannot receive these benefits. There is no tax policy reason why employees should not be able to receive any benefits from an ELHT trust which can be provided by an employer directly, subject only to the proper tax reporting of the applicable benefits.

MEBCO recommends that the ELHT rules be modified to permit ELHTs to provide EAP, health and wellness, bereavement and any other employee benefits that may be provided by an employer directly subject only to appropriate tax reporting for the underlying benefits.

MEBCO believes that this may be accomplished by modifying the definition of "designated employee benefits to include any employee benefit subject only to proper tax reporting of the benefits. Alternatively, the ELHT conditions should be modified to specify that ELHTs qualify where they are established to "primarily" provide designated employee benefits.

8. Extending carry-forward/carry-back rules for non-capital losses to HWTs

Subsection 111(7.4) was added to the Act with the December 2010 amendments creating the ELHT regime to include a special rule providing for a three year carry-back and carry-forward for the deduction of non-capital losses on the taxable income of the ELHTs. In the Technical Notes  released with the ELHT amendments, the Department of Finance explained the special non-capital loss rules as follows:

"This mechanism is being introduced in recognition that the income of an ELHT for a year will not always reflect its obligations to provide designated employee benefits for the year.

However, the effect of this amendment to the definition "non-capital loss" will also be to enable such a trust to create a loss in relation to a distribution of the capital of the trust. Consequentially, a shorter carry-forward period is provided, which it is anticipated will be sufficient to allow employee life and health trusts to avoid paying income tax in most situations where they have not been over funded."

MEBCO believes that the three year non-capital loss rules is likely sufficient to fulfill the stated objective to allow ELHT to avoid paying income tax for the vast majority of MEPs. However, MEBCO is of the view, that from a tax equity and policy perspective, ELHTs should receive the same treatment as any other trust as set out in the general non-capital loss rules in paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act and be permitted to carry-forward non-capital losses for 20 years and carry-back for 3 years. MEPs, which are arm's length from the participating employers and trade unions, operate on a not-for-profit basis and provide no personal benefit for any participating employer or trade union given the restrictions on the use of ELHT funds. Short of extending a full exemption for ELHTs, ELHTs should be treated no less favourably than any other trust.

Under the HWT Folio, the CRA administratively imposed a prohibition on HWTs precluding entirely the carry-forward or carry-back of non-capital losses. To the extent that HWTs that convert to an ELHT have been subject to tax for tax years prior to conversion, they should be able to take advantage of the ELHT non-capital loss carry-back and carry-forward rules.

MEBCO recommends that subsection 111(7.4) of the Act be repealed and the general rule set out in paragraph 111(1)(a) should apply to all ELHTs and the Transitional Rules should permit HWTs that convert to an ELHT to carry-back non-capital losses for 3 years, including any tax year in which the Trust was an HWT.

9. Key Employee Restrictions

The key employee restrictions likely do not impact on MEBCO MEP members. A very small minority of members, such as non-bargaining unit and management employees covered by a participating employer, may meet the definition of a "key employee". However, MEBCO does not believe that MEPs should need to make this assessment and that there is no tax policy need for such restrictions.

As trustees, the boards must as a function of their fiduciary duty to all members treat all beneficiaries evenhandedly – they cannot provide unwarranted differential treatment to different classes of employees. For MEPs in particular, given that contributions are fixed in accordance with participation agreements for non-bargaining unit members without differentiation, any member which may be a key employee receives the same level of benefits with all other beneficiaries in the class based on fixed contributions in accordance with a formula that does not vary and is based on hours worked or similar measures specific to each employee.

To the extent that ELHTs may be "misused" outside of the MEP and collectively bargained context, we believe the ITA already includes mechanisms to restrict the level of benefits and contributions to smaller plans, including those that may be established for small and family run businesses. Very specific ITA provisions deal with eligibility requirements and limits for sole proprietors with respect to PHSP benefits. For example, the CRA regularly audits these businesses with respect to reasonableness limits on the level of contributions and benefits provided to employees or, deny employee tax exemptions and employer deductions on the basis that the individual receiving these benefits is doing so in their capacity as a shareholder, not an employee.

These are precisely the same restrictions that are intended to be implemented under the key employee rules. In MEBCO's view, it is entirely unnecessary to saddle ELHTs, and MEPs in particular, with additional restrictions imposing compliance risks and/or onerus costs when the objective of these rules are intended to achieve are already embedded in the legislation and within the CRA's authority to enforce.

MEBCO recommends that the key employee provisions be amended to exempt MEPs and collectively bargained plans with members covered by a participation agreement providing comparable benefits.

10. Further Consultation and Assistance

We would be pleased to discuss our comments on the Proposed Amendments and invite you to contact us should you have any questions, or in the event that we can be of further assistance.

Yours truly,
MEBCO

rblakely@bdcounsel.ca

c. MEBCO HWT Committee

Cameron Hunter, Eckler Partners Ltd. (chunter@eckler.ca)
Joan Tanaka, Prudent Benefits Administration Services Inc. (joan_tanaka@pbas.ca)
Susan Bird, J.J. McAteer & Associates Incorporated (sbird@mcateer.ca)
Jeff Baldwin, Benefit Plan Administrators Limited (jbaldwin@bpagroup.com)
David Veld, BDO Canada LLP (dveld@bdo.ca)
Roberto Tomassini, Koskie Minsky LLP (rtomassini@kmlaw.ca)


1 Registered Plans Directorate technical manual –17.2 8510(2) "Definition of a Specified Multi-Employer Plan" at (a); Technical Notes, Reg. 8510(6), 18 May 1999; Compliance Bulletin No. 7, 10 May 2011.
2 see CRA Views, Interpretation, 2010-0374891E5; CRA Views, 9423045 (February 14, 1995).
3 Income Tax Folio S2-F1-C1, Health and Welfare Trusts, § IT-85R2; CRA Views, Interpretation 2016-0645581E5 (January 22, 2019).
4 ITA Regulations, s. 8514(2.1)(d); Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, 1985 (SOR/87-19), s 17(3).

Main Submissions Page

The expert voice of multi-employer benefit interests in Canada.

Join Today!