~ archived since 2018 ~

Reminder to my Canadian men!

pteawesome · 2017-10-06T16:40:32+00:00

Write to your ministers and demand that the Income Tax Act stop discriminating against single father's, demand equal rights to claim your children, and...

pteawesome

October 6, 2017

45 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Reminder to my Canadian men!
Author	pteawesome
Upvotes	45
Comments	15
Date	October 6, 2017 4:40 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/74otm9/reminder_to_my_canadian_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/reminder-to-my-canadian-men.913353 https://theredarchive.com/post/913353

Comments

[+]WhyDoBirdsAppear1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Can someone explain this?

[–]CrockpotSeal 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]WhyDoBirdsAppear1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Can you explain this clause in regards to this subdivision?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]WhyDoBirdsAppear1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I have been looking deeper into it and no it doesn't say that. It just says the assumption is that when a child lives with their mother then the claimant's primary custodian and caregiver is likely going to be that female parent. That's different than saying child support is automatically going to the mom.

where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent

When a child is living with their mother...

the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent

It is assumed that it's going to be their mom, that they live with, who is going to be caring for them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah ... you should do some more reading into how this has been applied in practice. There was a single parent male who had moved in with his new girlfriend and the CRA gave the tax break to that girlfriend. She had no blood relationship to his kids, had not adopted them, was not a legal guardian for them ... but the CRA gave someone completely unrelated to the kids the tax credits and not their actual father. They literally made their decision solely on her sex.

Edit:

And, in my personal perspective ... there used to be a sizeable single parent tax break that meant several thousand dollars in reimbursed taxes for a single parent at one time (thanks Trudeau, you fuck, for killing it, BTW). When my son lived with my ex-wife on the other side of the country, the CRA just gave her that tax credit without consulting me once. When he moved in with me at 15, it didn't matter that I had proof of residence several times over, and lived literally on the opposite side of the country, so there was no way he was residing with her, I needed to get a signed letter from her authorizing me to get the tax credit. I had to get permission from my ex-wife to claim a credit she'd claimed 15 times in a row without needing my permission once.

That's discriminatory practice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not true at all. This is not child support, this is taxes, there are two parts, there's the basic deduction then the CCB. Residing, also refers to on a part time basis, from birth for example they have an AUTOMATED system for mothers to apply.

It is presumed to be the mother, which is discriminatory in and of itself. Further, if custody is 50/50 the male parent has to fight for it, the female parent does not. The wording of female parent also means if a man remarries it defaults to the spouse, which can be a considerable change.

It negates the males role in the child's life, negates the male half of split parents ability to care for their children. In efficacy it creates a system where the male parties NEED to FIGHT against the CRA, imagine fighting the IRS... for comparison... to be able to get access the same systems that women get by default. That is exactly what it says and happens... The presumption or preference of one over the other on the basis of gender is discrimination by default... and this is concerning because it's LEGISLATED MANDATED DISCRIMINATION.

[+]WhyDoBirdsAppear1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that the wording needs to be changed but all it's saying is that when a child lives with their female parent it is assumed that their female parent is the one providing the care and support for them. You've jumped off the deep end with this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No the person entitled to the CCB and the tax deductions is the caregiver...the whole act (which obviously I won't post) - here are relevant snippits.

"eligible individual in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time

(a) resides with the qualified dependant,

(b) is a parent of the qualified dependant who

(i) is the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant and who is not a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant, or

(ii) is a shared-custody parent in respect of the qualified dependant," Means that the presumption noted in Section F entitles the female parent to those benefits. More over CRA applies automatically without contacting the male parent. It is worth noting that

"shared-custody parent in respect of a qualified dependant at a particular time means, where the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition eligible individual does not apply in respect of the qualified dependant, an individual who is one of the two parents of the qualified dependant who

(a) are not at that time cohabitating spouses or common-law partners of each other,

(b) reside with the qualified dependant on an equal or near equal basis, and

(c) primarily fulfil the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant when residing with the qualified dependant, as determined in consideration of prescribed factors. (parent ayant la garde partagée)" - Basically means "well it's possible for a man but good fucking luck, because 122.6 (f) also means we have to take her word over yours, sooooo you have to go to court for it, whereas mommy doesnt"

You may also like this post there's several stories where you can really read how this law actually impacts people and it is VERY significant https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/6kckas/canada_revenue_agency_discriminates_against_men/

[+]WhyDoBirdsAppear1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It literally says

Primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of a child...If there is a female parent who lives with the child, we usually consider her to be this person.

So if a child lives with their female parent it's assumed she is primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of a child

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morgsz 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link