Ongoing saga of BC NDP’s botched speculation and vacancy tax rollout
A few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my concerns about the botched rollout of the BC NDP’s speculation and vacancy tax.
Since that time we have continued to receive a high volume of feedback, including thousands of emails, many scores of phone calls and numerous in-person visits to our constituency office. Many have expressed frustration about the tax, particularly the difficulty in making contact with government to speak to a live person about the specifics of the tax and its potential exemptions. We have received countless reports that the phone number provided to the public leaves people on hold for hours. This is unacceptable.
In fact, my own staff attempted to phone this number to get clarification about the tax and gave up after being on hold for 90 minutes. This is unacceptable.
The fact is, there are myriad nuances in the various situations affecting the people to which the tax may apply. My office is doing the best we can to help out, but I can tell you that our frustration levels are very high as we believe it is inexcusable for the government to have introduced this new tax measure without ensuring that adequate resources are present to help people navigate through its complexities.
Some of the most frequent concerns regarding the speculation and vacancy tax expressed to my office are listed below:
1. Privacy of Information
- Concern has been expressed about private information that is required to complete the declaration form, including having to provide a Social Insurance Number.
We have been advised that the government requires personal information such as Social Insurance Numbers to confirm that homeowners claiming the personal residence exemption do meet the requirements. In addition, the personal information provides confirmation of how much a person must pay if they do not qualify for an exemption.
2. Security of Information
- Given the recent highly publicized breaches of security experienced at major corporations and governments across the globe, concern has been frequently expressed about security of private information and risk of it being compromised.
We have been advised that the information collected through the government’s eTaxBC application is encrypted upon entry and masked. As a result even government employees cannot access the information without specific authorization.
3. Use of Information
- Concern has been expressed about how personal information will be used by government and for what purpose, now and in the future
We have been advised that the personal information collected under the Act is protected in a manner consistent with the BC Government’s Information Security Policy, Federal Security Standards and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
4. Access to timely information
- We have been advised of, and experienced directly, excessive wait times on the phone to speak to an agent for clarification of the tax and eligibility for exemption.
The government has provided information on its website regarding the application of the Act and the various categories of exemption available to homeowners. Many of our constituents have found the website lacking in almost every way. The explanations are not clear and there are very few concrete examples to examine.
For instance, in order to claim a Personal Residence exemption the website says a person must be “… a Canadian Citizen or permanent resident of Canada who’s a B.C. resident for income tax purposes …”. If one of the owners had to move for work related purposes the website says the parties could claim for 2 principal residences if both were still in BC. However, the website is silent about situations where the spouse has had to move out of the province or country for work and is therefore no longer a BC resident for income tax purposes. There is a section regarding the situation if a person lived in the property and had to move out of the province. That section says an exemption could be claimed. However, that section directly contradicts the original section which says the applicant has to be BC resident for income tax purposes.
This is just one example of the many problems people are facing. Attempts to resolve issues by phone are stymied by an incomprehensible and contradictory website and the completely inadequate resources the government provided to deal with public inquiries.
And there are two issues we are still struggling to get answers to.
i) Appeal
- What process is in place to appeal the tax
Update: since publication of this blog we have been informed that you can “appeal” by writing to the Ministry or the Minister outlining your situation and requesting an appeal; that will trigger the appeals process.
ii) Cost to taxpayer
- What is the cost to the taxpayer to administer this tax
I will continue to raise the concerns I am hearing with government to ensure that people are able to get the information they need. In particular, I will press government to take action to improve the accessibility and timeliness of information and make sure people can reach speculation and vacancy tax agents on the phone who can answer their question. Thank you for your patience. You are not alone in your frustration.
7 Comments
Andrew, i sent you a comment a few minutes ago and then i called the tax government number. i asked what the action would be if i did not register by the deadline and was informed that i would be penalized 2.5%. i then asked if that was in addition to the tax and was told “yes”. I then said so I would have to pay a total of 5% and again the answer was “yes”.
Please see my previous comment for the action that i recommend you take.
Andrew, this Speculation Tax registration process will have me prove that I am innocent; shades of Bib Brother!
The time has come for you to issue an ultimatum to the government – withdraw at least this registration process or the Green Party will withdraw its support of the NDP.
I would like to express appreciation of your stand to treat all Canadians as equal in this matter. Disappointing was Minister James reluctance to compromise but happily you forced the issue.
For a couple reaching age 80 this year, dealing with a retroactive tax imposition such as this is needless to say, somewhat chaotic. As always, poorly thought out measures give rise to unintended consequences. As we see it, those who are impacted the most are retired second home owners within the designated areas. Certainly speculators are minimally affected as I could not imagine a spec purchase left vacant for even twelve months, never mind six. As well, many homes in this category will be relatively high end completely unsuited to the needs of the struggling younger buyers or indeed renters. So in reality, the greatest impact of the tax will fall on the shoulders of seniors in our category either BC residents, Canadian out of Province residents or our American friends. Perhaps Minister James should rename the Tax once again: Seniors’ Second Residence Tax? As to the retroactive aspect, I know Minister James discounted that as not valid. As with many aspects of this issue: wrong!
In any case, glad you forced Minister James to treat all Canadians equally. I just wish it had been clearer to the framers of the Tax of its unintended consequences. Moreover it is disappointing that you and your colleagues failed to run interference to retroactive implementation
Hugh
This is simply blathering: ‘We have been advised that the government requires personal information such as Social Insurance Numbers to confirm that homeowners claiming the personal residence exemption do meet the requirements.” This is the kind of PR speak which is delivered simply to make things easier for the government. The Personal Information Protection Act reads:
11 Subject to this Act, an organization may collect personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances…. Using a SIN number to prove Canadian citizenship is unwarranted and un-necessary. By the governments admission, 99% of British Columbians are exempt: does taxing a possible 1% of the population provide justification for hoovering up such a vast quantity of data? I think not.
To bad you voted it!! We wouldn’t have it if it wasn’t for you Andrew.
The problems with this legislation are many, but most of them are related to arrogance in not accepting identied problems, and being insulting to born and bred British Columbians who have a “cottage” that happens to be in the included areas.
Access to personnel is indeed extremely difficult. Access to NDP politicians is virtually impossible. Emails are responded to with auto replies and generic replies with your name added, to make it seem personal. This is betrayed by the fact that the content of the email doesn’t relate to the questions.
Outrageous as this is, beware the local governments who want a tax of their own to piggyback on the Provincial tax. If the Provincial politicians accede to the request, the tax will be 10-50 times the Provincial tax.
The discrimination between geographic areas coupled with the lack of precision, resulting in taxation of those who are neither vacant house people or speculators is an appalling and confiscatory action.
Thank you for though late a timely post
I just replied to your Facebook post so will not state the failures I have encountered
A major concern I have in this process is the government has been assuming everybody uses social media so majority of their communication is via the Government Web,Site ( like we look at that a daily feed) just recently I saw an Instagram and Facebook post but nothing has been on the Radio or TV or the Newspaper. In fact no announcement about number forms completed .
March 31 is almost upon us , in fact most letters did not get received till mid February , not to mention mail on hold for a week.
Even the referendum was extended.
Grrrr
Robert Holloway
1850 Penshurst Road
Victoria BC