Almost all of this miscommunication has happened with the International Tax Office. The office seems to be made up of some of the most well-meaning, genuinely nice people of any government office I have ever come across. I perceive them to come undone because of the insane complexity of what they're trying to achieve: namely, taxing one who does not live in the country by rules that vary base on which country he (or she) is currently residing in. There is a published set of guidelines and, rather distressingly for honest but simple people like me, another set of unpublished policies that only come to light when you controvene one of them. So, I remain in correspondence with the International Tax Office over a couple of points that surface on an officer's "to-do" list every 8 months or so. However, to deal with the current iteration of our misunderstanding, we still need to get to the bottom of some questions I posed to them back in January, 2007. Those answers seem difficult to clarify. I remain unable to answer the questions they have for me while the International Tax Office remain unable to answer the questions I have for them. The policy for impasse seems to be to bury the file... until eight or so months later we re-exchange our confusion in the politest of terms.
Ange, however, took our CRA confusion to a whole new level. She once received the Universal Child Care Benefit. We left for England and she asked it stop. It didn't. She held the cheques. 6 months later they informed us we shouldn't be receiving it. She sent back the cheques. Seemingly end of story. But then Ange re-applied for the same Universal Child Care Benefit on returning to Canada. This caused some confusion at the CRA and we were forced to re-visit this cheques issued and returned thing again. Unlike their friends over the in the International Tax Office, the very nice people in the Tax Services Office recommended regular, multiple applications for the same benefit. After some back and forth, it all seemed to be mostly resolved... in as much as Ange and I were, at least, not in trouble and probably would just get the benefit...though they might hold a little back until they had thought it through. This was all confirmed in a phone conversation. And then they sent us a letter.
So, I will lay out the letter for you and we're going to play some "interactive blog" again. The rules are simple. You tell us what the hell they mean by the following letter. If you're right (and this may take some time to be resolved), we'll either have you by for dinner or send you sweets from Vancouver.
The letter:
So, the question is: are they saying, "No, no, you were right all along!" Or are they saying, "No, despite your appeal, you're wrong."This is further to your telephone conversation of May **, 2009 with ****** *********, an officer of the Appeals Division.
We have considered your objection for the year shown above and have concluded that the determination has been correctly issued.
Therefore, as agreed recently, we hereby confirm the determination under subextion 165(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Yours sincerely,
Have fun with it. We do.