An owner-manager works out the standby charge, puts it on the T4, and considers the vehicle dealt with. The income tax side is complete and correct. A second liability has just been created in a tax nobody in that conversation was thinking about.
Key Takeaway
Under section 173 of the Excise Tax Act, where a benefit is taxable for income tax purposes, a registrant employer is considered to have made a supply of the property or service giving rise to it and is deemed to have collected tax on the value of the benefit. The tax is deemed collected on the last day of February of the following year and reported on the GST/HST return covering that date. For standby charge and operating expense benefits, the value includes amounts the employee reimbursed, so an employee who fully reimburses eliminates the T4 benefit and none of the GST/HST.
A Note On Currency
Everything here is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation before reliance.
The remittance factors quoted in this article must be confirmed before use. Our sources span 2015 to 2024, factors differ by province and by year, and additional rates apply to large businesses subject to input tax credit recapture. We report the factors our sources give and treat none of them as current.
One CRA memorandum example we discuss describes Prince Edward Island as a non-participating province[4], which dates it, and we address that in its own section.
Two of our commentary sources carry near-identical wording and we treat them as one line of commentary[1][2].
We did not obtain the memorandum's treatment of the section 170 restrictions or its exclusions from liability, both of which it lists as sections, and we say so where it matters.
This is not tax advice.
Closing A Gap We Left Open
A note on why this article exists.
Our article on the automobile standby charge recorded, in its limits section, that it did not address GST/HST input tax credits and the associated benefit remittance. That was accurate, and it left the second half of a single decision undescribed.
This is the third time in this series that a limits section has flagged a subject and a later article has picked it up. We mention it because it is the point of writing those sections honestly.
The two subjects belong together, and this is our own observation.
An owner-manager computing a standby charge is making one decision with two tax consequences. The income tax consequence is visible, discussed and usually calculated carefully.
The sales tax consequence is automatic, unmentioned in the payroll process, and lands elsewhere.
An adviser who addresses only the first has given an answer that is correct and incomplete, which is a harder failure to notice than a wrong one.
What Section 173 Does
The mechanism, as commentary describes it.
Commentary states that the treatment of GST/HST for employee taxable benefits under section 173 largely follows their treatment under the Income Tax Act, and that generally, where a benefit is taxable for income tax purposes, the employer that is a GST/HST registrant is considered to have made a supply of the property or service that gave rise to that benefit to the employee and is deemed to have collected tax on the value of the benefit amount[1][2].
Another source states that, subject to certain exceptions, section 173 requires GST/HST registrants to include tax deemed collectible and collected on the total value of the taxable benefit and any reimbursements, in the case of automobile benefits, in the registrant's net tax calculation[3].
Three features, ours.
The obligation is derivative. It does not have its own test. If the benefit is taxable for income tax, the sales tax consequence follows.
It operates by deeming a supply that did not commercially occur. The employer did not sell the employee anything; the provision says it did.
And it enters the net tax calculation as collected tax, meaning it is remitted like any other tax collected on a sale, notwithstanding that nothing was charged to anyone.
The Employee Has Already Paid It
The design point, and it makes the rule coherent rather than arbitrary.
Commentary states that the employee does not pay the GST/HST, as it is already included in the calculation of the taxable benefit reported on the employee's T4 or T4A slip, and that section 173 effectively ensures that the GST/HST cost is borne by the employee, rather than the registrant employer[1][2].
Work through the logic, and this is our own explanation.
A taxable benefit is valued at what the thing cost, including the tax the employer paid on it. The employee's income inclusion is therefore a tax-inclusive figure.
The employer, meanwhile, will generally have recovered that tax as an input tax credit when it bought the item.
So without section 173 the tax would have been recovered by the employer and never paid by anyone, on property or services that ended up being consumed personally.
Section 173 closes that by extracting the tax back out of the benefit value.
Two consequences.
The remittance is not an additional cost to the employer in principle, since it corresponds to a credit already claimed.
But an employer that never claimed the credit and also never made the remittance has two errors that partly offset, and unpicking them years later is considerably harder than doing both correctly.
The Return It Lands On
The timing rule, which is where the obligation gets lost.
Commentary states that the tax is deemed to have been collected on the last day of February of the year immediately following the calendar year in which the taxable benefits were required to be included in an individual's income[3].
And that employers are generally required to remit GST/HST owing on taxable benefits, calculated using a factor of the benefit amount, on the GST/HST return covering the last day of February following the end of the taxation year[5].
Commentary gives the worked timing: a benefit supplied during the year ended 31 December is reported on the GST/HST return for the reporting period that includes 28 February of the following year[2].
Three observations, ours.
The date is the T4 deadline, which is sensible, since the benefit figure is not known until the slips are prepared.
But it means the entry lands on a sales tax return for a period two months into the following year, relating to a calendar year that closed.
And it is a payroll-derived number entering a sales tax filing, which is a handoff between two processes that in most small businesses are run by different people or different software.
Why It Gets Missed
Our own analysis of the failure mode, because it is structural rather than careless.
Consider how the two processes actually run.
The T4 process happens once a year, in February, driven by payroll software or an accountant preparing slips. Its output is slips and a summary.
The GST/HST process runs monthly, quarterly or annually, driven by the sales ledger. Its inputs are invoices issued and invoices received.
Nothing in the second process asks about the first. A sales tax return is built from transactions, and this amount corresponds to no transaction.
Three consequences.
The amount has to be manually introduced into a return that is otherwise mechanically derived, which means somebody has to remember it exists.
The person preparing the T4s is frequently not the person filing the GST/HST return, and neither has a prompt.
And the error is invisible on both sides. The T4s are right. The sales tax return reconciles to the sales ledger. Nothing looks wrong.
That combination, an obligation that is correct in one system and absent from another with no link between them, is why this is one of the more commonly missed remittances in Canadian small business.
The Factors Are Not The Rate
The computation, which does not use the ordinary tax rate.
Commentary and CRA guidance describe the remittance as calculated using a factor of the benefit amount[5].
The factors reported by our sources include 4/104 where the relevant establishment is in a non-participating province or territory[6], and 12/112 for Ontario[6], with a CRA memorandum example applying 12/112 to a $1,500 benefit to give $160.71[4].
For automobile operating expense benefits, the calculation is described as a percentage rather than a fraction, reported as 9 percent for Ontario, or 6.6 percent for a large business subject to input tax credit recapture[6].
Additional factors apply to large businesses that recaptured input tax credits on a motor vehicle, reported as 4/104, 6/106, 6.5/106.5, 8/108 and 9/109 depending on the recapture rate and province[7][1].
We report all of these as our sources give them and treat none as current. Two observations, ours.
The factors are tax-included fractions, extracting tax from a benefit value that already contains it, which is consistent with the design described above.
And the Ontario benefit factor reported as 12/112 is not the tax-included fraction of the 13 percent rate, which would be 13/113. We did not establish why, and flag it rather than explaining it.
It Follows The Establishment
The rule determining which factor applies, and it is not the one people assume.
Commentary states that if the last establishment where your employee ordinarily worked or to which he or she ordinarily reported in the year is located in a non-participating province or territory, you are considered to have collected 4/104 of the value of the benefit[6].
And it states the negative directly: the location of an employee's residence and the tax status of the underlying vehicle, for automobile operating cost benefits, have no impact on the determination of whether or not the benefit is subject to HST[5].
Three consequences, ours.
The employee's home province is irrelevant, which matters increasingly as remote and hybrid arrangements spread.
Where the vehicle was bought, registered or taxed is irrelevant, which is counterintuitive for a benefit computed on a vehicle.
What matters is the establishment the employee ordinarily worked at or reported to, which is an employment fact rather than a tax one.
For a multi-province employer this is a real determination. The same benefit, the same vehicle and the same employee produce different remittances depending on which office the person is attached to, and that attachment can change during a year.
A CRA Example That Has Aged
A vintage marker worth recording, because it tells you how old some of this guidance is.
The memorandum example we obtained reads: a resident of Prince Edward Island, a non-participating province, ordinarily works at his employer's establishment located in New Brunswick, a participating province, with a benefit valued at $1,500 for income tax purposes, and the tax deemed collected calculated as 12/112 of $1,500, being $160.71[4].
Prince Edward Island is not a non-participating province today, and has not been for many years.
Two observations, ours.
The example is therefore constructed on a provincial map that no longer exists, which places the memorandum text well back in time whatever its nominal status.
But the principle it illustrates survives the staleness entirely, and is arguably illustrated better by it. The point of the example is that the employee's residence does not decide the factor; the establishment does. It makes that point by choosing a resident of one province working at an establishment in another with a different tax status.
We flag the vintage because a reader who checks the source should not be confused by it, and because it is a reminder that guidance in this area has not been comprehensively refreshed.
It does not affect the arithmetic. On the figures given, 12/112 of $1,500 is $160.71, which we checked.
Automobiles Have Their Own Rules
The category that generates most of these remittances, and it is treated separately.
Commentary notes that special rules apply to taxable benefits involving automobiles[5], and that the operating expense benefit is computed on a percentage basis rather than by a tax-included fraction[6].
Federal guidance confirms the linkage in plain terms: the automobile standby charge and operating expense benefit may also give rise to GST/HST obligations that are based on the income tax rules, and employers must remit GST/HST for automobile expense benefits provided to employees that are taxable benefits for income tax purposes[8].
Two observations, ours.
The two automobile benefits are computed differently from each other: the standby charge by a fraction, the operating expense benefit by a percentage. An employer applying one method to both has one of them wrong.
And because the income tax computation drives the sales tax one, any adjustment to the standby charge flows through. A recalculation for reduced personal use changes both numbers.
That linkage is ordinarily helpful. It becomes a trap in one specific and very common situation, which is the subject of the next section.
The Reimbursement Paradox
The finding this article exists for.
Commentary states that if the taxable benefit is for a standby charge or the operating expense of an automobile, the value of the benefit for GST/HST purposes also includes the amount, if any, that the employee or the employee's relative reimbursed the employer for that benefit[1].
And it draws the conclusion explicitly: if the employee fully reimburses the employer an amount equal to the entire standby charge or operating expense benefit such that there is no benefit amount to be reported on the T4 or T4A slip, then the value of the taxable benefit for GST/HST purposes would be the amount of the reimbursement[1].
Another source confirms the structure, describing section 173 as requiring tax on the total value of the taxable benefit and any reimbursements, in the case of automobile benefits[3].
Our own arithmetic on a $7,200 standby charge, using the reported Ontario factor of 12/112.
With no reimbursement: T4 benefit $7,200, GST/HST base $7,200, remittance roughly $771.
With half reimbursed: T4 benefit $3,600, GST/HST base still $7,200, remittance roughly $771.
With the benefit fully reimbursed: T4 benefit nil, GST/HST base still $7,200, remittance roughly $771.
The income tax benefit falls to zero. The sales tax base does not move at all.
What That Means For A Common Plan
The practical consequence, which is ours.
Reimbursing the corporation for personal use is standard owner-manager advice, and it is good advice for its own purpose. It reduces or eliminates an income inclusion at personal marginal rates.
What the structure above establishes is that it does not touch the sales tax obligation at all. The reimbursement is added back into the base.
Three consequences.
An owner-manager who reimburses fully and therefore reports no benefit on their T4 has the strongest possible reason to believe nothing further is owed, and is wrong.
Because there is no slip and no income inclusion, there is nothing at all in the payroll process to prompt the sales tax entry. The one prompt that might have existed has been removed by the planning.
And the population most likely to be in this position is precisely the one this publication writes for: owner-managers who have taken good advice on the income tax side.
We would state the point plainly. Eliminating the taxable benefit does not eliminate the tax. It eliminates the only visible reminder that the tax exists.
Shareholder Benefits Are Caught Too
An extension beyond employment.
Commentary states that GST/HST must be remitted on shareholder benefits if they fall into subsection 15(1) and are not zero-rated or exempt[6].
Another describes the test as requiring a determination, for income tax purposes, of whether the supply gives rise to an inclusion, in order to establish whether section 173 applies[3].
Two observations, ours.
This publication has addressed shareholder benefits and shareholder loans separately, and the point here is narrow: a subsection 15(1) benefit carries the same sales tax consequence as an employment benefit.
Which matters because shareholder benefits frequently arise on assessment rather than by choice. Where CRA identifies personal use of corporate property and assesses a benefit, the sales tax remittance follows the income tax adjustment.
So a reassessment on the income tax side can produce a second, unbilled liability on the sales tax side, arising from the same finding. A business negotiating one should establish whether the other is coming.
What Is Not Caught
The boundary, which is doing real work.
Commentary states that GST/HST must be remitted on a taxable benefit unless the benefit is exempt or zero-rated, giving as an example the benefit on low-interest loans[6]. A CRA memorandum extract makes the same point about gifts, referring to the remittance obligation arising if the supply is not an exempt or zero-rated supply[4].
Two observations, ours.
The low-interest loan example is instructive because it is one of the most common owner-manager benefits, and it carries no sales tax consequence. The reason is that lending is a financial service, and financial services are exempt.
So the test is not whether the benefit is taxable for income tax. It is whether the underlying supply would have been taxable had it been sold.
That gives a usable question: if the employer had sold this thing to a stranger, would it have charged tax? If not, the benefit does not generate a remittance.
We flag that this is our formulation rather than a stated test, and that the exclusions in the legislation are more precisely drawn than that question. The memorandum lists a section headed exclusions from liability to account for tax on taxable benefits[4], which we did not obtain.
The Connection To Gifts And Awards
A link to another article in this series, which the memorandum makes directly.
Its text refers to a gift, and states that the registrant may be required to include in its net tax calculation the GST/HST deemed collectible and collected on the value of the gift, if the supply is not an exempt or zero-rated supply[4]. It also refers to prizes or incentives, in a passage we obtained only the opening of.
Set that against the gifts and awards analysis addressed elsewhere in this series, and the interaction is worth spelling out. This is our own analysis.
Non-cash gifts within the annual threshold are not a taxable benefit, so no income inclusion and no sales tax remittance.
Where the threshold is exceeded, the excess becomes a taxable benefit, and on the structure above that excess carries a sales tax remittance too.
So exceeding the gift threshold has two consequences rather than one, and an employer that has correctly reported the excess on T4s has completed half of the response.
The amounts are small per employee and can be substantial across a workforce, and the calculation is straightforward once somebody knows to do it.
What It Adds Up To
The magnitude, computed by us on illustrative figures and the reported factors.
Take eight employees with a standby charge of $7,200 each and an operating expense benefit of $2,400 each. That is $57,600 and $19,200 of benefits respectively.
In a non-participating province at 4/104 on the standby charge, roughly $2,215.
In Ontario at 12/112 on the standby charge, roughly $6,171, plus the operating expense benefit at a reported 9 percent, roughly $1,728. Combined, roughly $7,899 a year.
Over four years, roughly $31,598.
Three cautions. Every factor is as reported by our sources and must be confirmed. We did not research penalties or interest. And the figures assume the benefits are correctly computed in the first place, which the standby charge article addresses separately.
Our own observation is about the profile of this exposure. It is modest per employee and persistent, it accrues in a business that believes its payroll compliance is in order, and it is found by looking at T4 summaries against sales tax returns, which is a comparison an auditor can make in minutes.
A Restriction We Did Not Obtain
An acknowledged gap, flagged because it may change the answer.
The memorandum's contents list includes a section headed interaction of the restrictions under section 170, the taxable benefits under the ITA, and section 173, and a further section headed exclusions from liability to account for tax on taxable benefits[4].
We obtained neither.
What we can say about why it matters, and this is ours.
Section 170 imposes restrictions on input tax credits in defined circumstances. The design described earlier in this article assumes the employer generally recovered the tax on acquisition, and the remittance corrects for that.
Where a credit was never available, that assumption fails, and it would be surprising if the legislation nonetheless required a remittance with nothing to correct.
We are not going to assert that. It is a reasoned expectation, not a described rule, and the memorandum plainly addresses the interaction in a section we do not have.
An employer whose benefits arise from acquisitions on which credits were restricted should treat this as a specific question, because it is the most likely route to a different answer.
Quebec Runs A Parallel Rule
A jurisdictional note.
Commentary states that section 173 of the Excise Tax Act and section 290 of the Act respecting the Quebec sales tax require employers to remit GST/HST and QST in respect of certain taxable benefits[5].
It reports that QST registrants are generally required to remit QST included in taxable benefits based on a factor of 9.975/109.975 of the benefit amount, on the QST return covering the last day of February, and that the QST automobile operating cost benefit remittance rate is 6 percent[5].
We report those figures as stated, note the source is dated 2024, and treat them as requiring confirmation like the federal ones.
Two observations, ours.
The structure is parallel, including the February timing, so a Quebec employer faces the same handoff problem twice.
And the QST operating cost rate is different from the GST/HST one, which means the two computations are separate rather than one figure applied twice.
What The Auditor Actually Examines
The enquiry in practice. This section is our own analysis.
T4 summaries against GST/HST returns, for the period covering the last day of February.
Whether any benefit remittance appears at all, which for a small employer is a single-line question.
The factor applied, against the province of the relevant establishment.
Whether the establishment or the residence was used to select the factor.
Automobile reimbursements, and whether they were added back into the base.
Standby charge and operating expense benefits computed on different bases, since the two use different methods.
Shareholder benefits assessed on the income tax side, and whether the corresponding remittance followed.
The first item deserves emphasis. It is one of the cleanest comparisons available to an examiner: the benefit figures are on filed slips, the remittance either appears on a filed return or does not, and both documents are already in the Agency's hands.
What Records Survive
The benefit calculation itself, reconciling the T4 figure to the sales tax base.
Reimbursement records, showing amounts received and added back for automobile benefits.
Evidence of the establishment each employee ordinarily worked at or reported to.
The factor applied and why, retained per year since factors change.
The return on which the remittance was made, cross-referenced to the year it relates to.
Input tax credit records for the underlying acquisitions, which are the other half of the design.
Any determination that a benefit was exempt or zero-rated, with its reasoning.
What To Do
Treat the T4 as creating two obligations. An income inclusion for the employee and a deemed collection for the employer.
Diarise the February return. The tax is deemed collected on the last day of February and belongs on the return covering that date.
Link the two processes. The sales tax return is built from transactions and this amount corresponds to none, so somebody has to introduce it deliberately.
Do not assume reimbursement solves it. For automobile benefits the reimbursement is added into the base, so a fully reimbursed benefit still generates the full remittance.
Use the establishment, not the residence. Commentary is explicit that the employee's home and the vehicle's tax status do not determine the factor.
Compute standby and operating benefits separately. One is reported as a fraction and the other as a percentage.
Confirm the factors for the year. Ours come from sources spanning 2015 to 2024 and additional rates apply to large businesses.
Check whether the underlying supply was exempt or zero-rated. A low-interest loan benefit is given as an example carrying no remittance.
Watch shareholder benefit assessments. A subsection 15(1) adjustment on the income tax side can carry a sales tax consequence.
Ask about section 170 if credits were restricted. The memorandum addresses that interaction in a section we did not obtain, and it is the most likely route to a different answer.
The Limits Of This Analysis
Several caveats matter. This is not tax advice. Everything is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation. Every remittance factor in this article is as reported by our sources, which span 2015 to 2024, and none should be treated as current; factors differ by province, by year, and by whether the registrant is a large business subject to input tax credit recapture. We did not read section 173 or section 170 directly. We did not obtain the memorandum's treatment of the section 170 restrictions or its exclusions from liability, both of which it lists as sections, and we expressly decline to state what they contain. A CRA memorandum example we quote describes Prince Edward Island as a non-participating province, which places it well back in time. Two of our commentary sources carry near-identical wording and are treated as one line of commentary. Our formulation of the exempt and zero-rated boundary as a question about whether the employer would have charged tax on a sale to a stranger is our own shorthand rather than a stated test. We did not research penalties or interest, the treatment where an employer is not a registrant, the input tax credit side of the same transactions, or the detailed automobile computations, which this publication addresses separately. The Quebec figures come from a single source dated 2024. All arithmetic is our own, applies the reported factors to hypothetical benefit amounts, and is illustrative only. The orphan-return analysis, the reimbursement paradox framing, the connection to the gift threshold and the audit examination structure are our own.
Frequently Asked Questions
We reported the benefit on the T4. Is there anything else?
Our employee reimburses the full standby charge, so there is no benefit. Does that end it?
Which rate do we use?
The employee lives in another province. Does that change it?
Does every taxable benefit carry this?
How would CRA find this?
References
- Baker Tilly Canada. Taxable Benefits and the GST/HST, on the treatment of GST/HST for employee taxable benefits under section 173 of the Excise Tax Act largely following their treatment under the Income Tax Act; on a registrant employer being considered to have made a supply of the property or service giving rise to a taxable benefit and being deemed to have collected tax on the value of the benefit amount; on the employer being required to report and remit this tax annually; on the employee not paying the GST/HST because it is already included in the calculation of the taxable benefit reported on the T4 or T4A, so that section 173 effectively ensures the cost is borne by the employee rather than the registrant employer; on the value of a standby charge or automobile operating expense benefit for GST/HST purposes also including any amount the employee or the employee's relative reimbursed, so that where a full reimbursement leaves no benefit to report on the slip, the value for GST/HST purposes is the amount of the reimbursement; and on additional factors of 4/104, 6/106 and 8/108 applying by reference to input tax credit recapture rates. Note: an accounting firm publication; its wording is near-identical to reference 2 and we treat the two as one line of commentary. bakertilly.ca
- Mondaq. Taxable Benefits and the GST/HST, cited for the same statements regarding section 173, the deemed supply and deemed collection, the employee bearing the cost through the slip value, and the timing rule under which the registrant employer is deemed to have collected the tax on the last day of February in the year following the taxation year, with a benefit supplied during a year ended 31 December reported on the return for the reporting period that includes 28 February following. Note: wording near-identical to reference 1; treated as the same line of commentary rather than independent corroboration. mondaq.com
- Ryan. CRA GST/HST Memoranda re: Taxable Benefits, on section 173 requiring GST/HST registrants, subject to certain exceptions, to include tax deemed collectible and collected on the total value of the taxable benefit and any reimbursements, in the case of automobile benefits, in the registrant's net tax calculation; on the tax being deemed to have been collected on the last day of February of the year immediately following the calendar year in which the taxable benefits were required to be included in an individual's income; and on the need to determine matters for income tax purposes in order to establish whether section 173 applies to a specific supply. Note: a tax advisory firm publication. ryan.com
- Canada Revenue Agency. GST/HST Memorandum 9.1, as hosted by a third party, on the time frame in section 173 being based on the taxation year of the individual, which is a calendar year; on an example in which a resident of Prince Edward Island, described as a non-participating province, ordinarily works at an employer's establishment in New Brunswick, a participating province, with a benefit valued at $1,500 and tax deemed collected of $160.71 calculated as 12/112 of that amount; on a registrant potentially being required to include in its net tax calculation the GST/HST deemed collectible and collected on the value of a gift, if the supply is not an exempt or zero-rated supply; and on the memorandum containing sections headed exclusions from liability to account for tax on taxable benefits and interaction of the restrictions under section 170, the taxable benefits under the ITA, and section 173. Note: a CRA memorandum accessed through a third-party host. Its example describes Prince Edward Island as non-participating, which places it well back in time. We did not obtain the two sections named. ryan.com
- Ryan. (2024). It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again: Time for Annual Employee Taxable Benefits Calculations, on section 173 of the Excise Tax Act and section 290 of the Act respecting the Quebec sales tax requiring employers to remit GST/HST and QST in respect of certain taxable benefits; on employers generally being required to remit on the return covering the last day of February following the end of the taxation year, calculated using a factor of the benefit amount; on the location of an employee's residence and the tax status of the underlying vehicle having no impact on the determination; on special rules applying to taxable benefits involving automobiles; on the remittance factor for GST included in a taxable benefit being 4/104 for the named non-participating jurisdictions for 2024; and on QST registrants generally remitting based on a factor of 9.975/109.975, with a QST automobile operating cost benefit remittance rate of 6 percent. Note: a tax advisory firm publication dated 2024; its figures require confirmation. ryan.com
- Padgett. Taxable Benefits: Remitting GST/HST on Taxable Employee Benefits, on GST/HST needing to be remitted on a taxable benefit unless the benefit is exempt or zero-rated, with the benefit on low-interest loans given as an example, and the automobile standby charge and operating expense benefit given as examples that are not; on GST/HST needing to be remitted on shareholder benefits falling within subsection 15(1) that are not zero-rated or exempt; on a factor of 4/104 applying where the last establishment at which the employee ordinarily worked or to which they ordinarily reported is in a non-participating province or territory; on 12/112 applying for Ontario, with reduced factors for large businesses subject to input tax credit recapture; and on the automobile operating expense benefit being computed as a percentage, reported as 9 percent for Ontario or 6.6 percent for a large business. Note: an accounting firm publication dated 2015; its figures are old and require confirmation. countbeans.com
- Canada Revenue Agency. Calculate the GST/HST to Remit on Employee Benefits, on factors of 4/104, 6/106, 6.5/106.5, 8/108 and 9/109 applying by reference to the recapture rate for the provincial part of the HST paid or payable on a motor vehicle and the province concerned. Note: a CRA primary guidance page; we obtained the large business recapture factors only. canada.ca
- Department of Finance Canada. Temporary Adjustments to the Automobile Standby Charge for the 2020 and 2021 Taxation Years Due to COVID-19, on the automobile standby charge and operating expense benefit potentially giving rise to GST/HST obligations that are based on the income tax rules, and on employers being required under the GST/HST rules to remit GST/HST for automobile expense benefits provided to employees that are taxable benefits for income tax purposes. Note: a federal government news release from 2020; we use it only for its statement of the linkage between the income tax and sales tax rules. canada.ca
This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not tax advice. Every remittance factor quoted is as reported by sources spanning 2015 to 2024 and none should be treated as current. Sections 173 and 170 were not read directly, and the memorandum's treatment of the section 170 interaction and of exclusions from liability was not obtained. A CRA example quoted here describes Prince Edward Island as a non-participating province, dating it. All arithmetic is the authors' own and is illustrative only.