A veterinarian and a pharmacist can dispense the same active ingredient on the same afternoon. One transaction carries no tax and the other carries thirteen percent, and neither professional chose it.
Key Takeaway
Section 3 of Part I of Schedule VI zero-rates a drug only where it is for human use. Commentary states that veterinary clinics are not considered to be health care facilities, that services provided to household pets and farm animals are taxable, and that agricultural or veterinary drugs are not zero-rated. The result inverts the pharmacy position described in our last article: a clinic is almost entirely taxable, which means virtually full input tax credit recovery and no apportionment to get wrong. Where zero-rating does reach a practice it arrives through the agriculture provisions in Part IV, not through health.
A Note On Currency
Everything here is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation before reliance.
CRA's Memorandum 4-4, Agriculture and Fishing, as we retrieved it, defines taxable as subject to GST at 6% or HST at 14%[2]. Those rates place the text roughly two decades back, and we address that in its own section.
We did not read Schedule VI directly and take its content from a CRA ruling, CRA guidance pages and commentary.
Two of our sources are commercial publications aimed at veterinarians, one from a wealth management firm[1] and one from an accounting firm marketing to clinic owners[5]. We identify both.
Our own arithmetic produced a figure roughly double the top of a range reported by one of those sources, and we set out that discrepancy rather than reconciling it.
We did not research provincial regulation of veterinary practice, professional corporations, or the income tax treatment of clinics.
This is not tax advice.
Closing A Loop We Opened Last Week
A note on why this article follows the one before it.
Our article on pharmacies quoted section 3 of Part I of Schedule VI and observed that it requires the drug to be for human use, adding that this is where veterinary supply departs and that the article did not pursue it.
This pursues it, and the result is more interesting than a footnote would have been.
Our own observation on why the pairing is worth reading together.
The two businesses look alike. Both dispense regulated medication, both employ a licensed professional, both carry a retail line, and both sit in the health-adjacent part of the economy.
They are treated in opposite ways, and the opposite treatment produces an outcome that runs against instinct: the business with no favourable treatment at all is in the better position.
That is the argument of this article, and the sections below build to it.
The Four Words
The provision, quoted as CRA states it, with the operative phrase isolated.
CRA states that section 3 of Part I of Schedule VI to the ETA zero-rates a supply of a drug when the drug is for human use and is dispensed (a) by a medical practitioner to an individual for the personal consumption or use of the individual or an individual related thereto; or (b) on the prescription of a medical practitioner or authorized individual for the personal consumption or use of the individual named in the prescription[3].
The condition is for human use.
Two observations, ours.
It is a condition on the drug, not on the transaction. The question is what the drug is for, not who paid or where it was handed over.
And the balance of section 3 confirms it, since both limbs refer to an individual whose personal consumption or use is in view. The provision is drafted around a person.
An animal has no personal consumption or use within the meaning of a provision framed that way, and the drug is not for human use. The section simply does not reach the transaction.
Our own reading is that this is not a policy judgment about animals. It is the natural consequence of a provision written for human medicine, and everything below follows from it mechanically.
A Clinic Is Not A Health Care Facility
The services side, stated flatly by commentary.
A publication written for veterinarians states that while most healthcare and dental services are exempt from GST/HST, veterinary clinics or veterinary hospitals are not considered to be health care facilities, and that medical services provided to household pets, farm animals, etc. by a veterinarian are taxable supplies[1].
Three consequences, ours.
The exemption this publication described in the medical and dental context does not extend here at all. It is not narrowed or partially available; it does not apply.
And the reason is definitional rather than substantive. The exempting provisions are built around health care facilities and practitioners treating individuals, and a clinic is not one.
Note that the commentary makes no distinction between household pets and farm animals on the services side. Both are taxable.
That is worth holding, because a distinction between those two categories does appear later in this article, on the goods side and through an entirely different Part of the Schedule.
And The Drugs Follow
The goods side, from the same source.
It states that agricultural or veterinary drugs are not zero-rated, so that the supply of a drug when it is labeled or supplied for agricultural or veterinary use only is taxable[1].
An accounting publication written for clinic owners states the same in operational terms: drug dispensing, prescription and non-prescription, for animals: taxable supplies, with the parenthetical drugs for human consumption are zero-rated; drugs for animal consumption are taxable[5]. It adds that prescription diets sold to pet owners are also taxable[5].
Two observations, ours.
The first source's formulation turns on labelling, which is a useful practical marker. A product labelled for veterinary use only is on the taxable side by its own packaging.
And the treatment does not vary with whether a prescription was involved. Both prescription and non-prescription animal drugs are taxable, which is a cleaner rule than the one a pharmacy operates under.
The prescription diet point is worth isolating. A therapeutic food sold on a veterinarian's direction resembles a prescription drug commercially and is taxable, which is consistent with the natural health products ruling we described in the pharmacy article: a prescription does not convert a product into a zero-rated drug.
The Same Drug, Two Counters
The illustration, computed by us at an assumed 13 percent.
Take a $140 course of medication.
Dispensed by a pharmacy on a prescription for human use, it is zero-rated. The customer pays $140.
Dispensed by a veterinary clinic for an animal, it is taxable. The customer pays $158.20.
Two observations, ours.
Nothing about the substance changed. The difference is four words in a provision that neither party to the transaction has read.
And the difference is visible to the customer, which is unusual. Most of the classification questions in this series are invisible on the receipt; this one appears as a line item that a pet owner may well ask about.
Which makes it worth a clinic being able to explain. The answer is not that animals are taxed more heavily as a matter of policy. It is that the zero-rating provision for drugs is written for human medicine and does not reach animal medicine, and the same is true of the exemption for health services.
The Complete Inversion
Setting the two businesses side by side. This comparison is ours.
A pharmacy, as our last article described, is mostly zero-rated with a taxable retail line and an exempt fringe. It is a mixed supplier. It must apportion input tax credits. The apportionment is its audit exposure, and underclaiming is its likely error.
A veterinary clinic is almost entirely taxable. It is effectively a single-category supplier. Commentary states that virtually all HST paid on clinic overhead, equipment, drugs, food, and surgical supplies is recoverable, and that the net HST result is usually a remittance position, not a refund position, but the ITC capture is full[5].
That source draws the comparison itself, describing the clinic position as a useful contrast to dental and pharmacy mixed-supplier complexity[5].
Two observations, ours.
The clinic has no apportionment to get wrong, which removes the single largest classification risk a mixed supplier carries.
And it has no incentive to misclassify. A mixed supplier has something to gain from characterising revenue favourably; a business where everything is taxable does not.
Being Taxable Is The Advantage
The conclusion that runs against instinct. This section is our own analysis.
Every business in this series that received favourable treatment paid for it.
The exempt operators, being medical and dental practices, childcare providers and residential landlords, charge no tax and recover nothing. As our childcare article computed, unrecoverable input tax on a premises-heavy operation is a permanent cost measured in points of revenue.
The mixed operators, being pharmacies and grocers, recover most of it and carry a permanent apportionment burden with an audit exposure attached.
The fully taxable operator recovers all of it and carries no apportionment at all.
Three consequences.
A veterinary clinic is in the structurally cleanest position of any health-adjacent business in this series.
The tax it charges is not its cost. It is collected from the client and remitted, and the clinic is a conduit.
What the clinic actually receives from the system is complete recovery of the tax on its own inputs, which for a drug-heavy business is a substantial figure.
We would put the point plainly for anyone who has ever envied the exempt treatment across the road. Exemption is not relief. It removes tax from the customer's invoice and imposes it permanently on the practice. Taxability does the opposite.
What Full Recovery Is Worth
The magnitude, computed by us on illustrative figures for a clinic with $2,000,000 of revenue, at an assumed 13 percent.
Rent and occupancy of $168,000, carrying about $21,840 of tax.
Drugs and vaccines of $390,000, carrying about $50,700.
Surgical consumables of $84,000, carrying about $10,920.
Equipment of $96,000, carrying about $12,480.
Food and retail stock of $72,000, carrying about $9,360.
Total taxable inputs of about $810,000, carrying about $105,300 of tax, all of it recoverable.
Against that, the same input base in a business recovering only part of it: on our pharmacy article's illustrative proportion of roughly 92.6 percent, about $97,508. In a wholly exempt practice, nil.
The spread between the fully taxable position and the wholly exempt one, on identical inputs, is the whole $105,300.
A Discrepancy In Our Own Figures
Something we are disclosing rather than smoothing over.
The source we have relied on for the clinic's position states that the annualized ITC volume for a typical $2M-revenue clinic is $35,000 to $50,000[5].
Our own figure for a clinic of the same size, on the input assumptions set out above, is about $105,300.
That is roughly double the top of their range, and it would be easy to describe the two as broadly consistent. They are not.
Two candidate explanations, and we have not established which is right.
Our input assumptions may be too heavy. We assumed $810,000 of taxable inputs against $2,000,000 of revenue, being roughly 40 percent. A clinic whose costs are more heavily weighted to veterinarian and technician salaries, which carry no tax, would have a much smaller recoverable base.
Or the source's range may be drawn on a narrower set of inputs than ours, for instance excluding drug purchases or capital equipment.
Our own view is that the first explanation is the more likely, and it points at something real: in a service business, the largest single cost is payroll, and payroll carries no recoverable tax. A clinic's recoverable base is smaller than its cost base by whatever proportion is wages.
We are leaving both figures visible because the reasoning matters more than either number, and because a reader modelling their own clinic should start from their actual taxable input volume rather than from anybody's rule of thumb.
Where Zero-Rating Does Exist
The exception, and it arrives from an unexpected direction.
Commentary notes that the only complexity is when the clinic provides services that are clearly zero-rated under specific Schedule VI provisions, for example certain agricultural services in support of food-producing animals under Schedule VI Part IV, adding that most companion-animal clinics do not have these supplies[5].
Two observations, ours.
The zero-rating that reaches a veterinary practice comes through Part IV, agriculture and fishing, not through Part I, drugs, or through the health exemptions.
Which means the organising principle is not medicine at all. It is food production.
That reframing explains the whole structure. The Act relieves supplies in the food chain, and it relieves supplies in human health care. A veterinary practice sits in neither unless the animals it treats are themselves in the food chain.
So a practice's tax profile is determined by what its patients are for, which is an unusual thing for a tax classification to turn on and a perfectly logical one once the two relieving policies are separated.
It Runs Through Agriculture, Not Health
The scope of the agricultural relief, from CRA's own guidance.
CRA states that most supplies of agricultural and fishing products are zero-rated, and that many products sold by those sectors for human consumption are already zero-rated under Part III of Schedule VI, which covers basic groceries[2].
It also states plainly that some agricultural products are not zero-rated, listing among the exclusions cut flowers, foliage, bedding plants, sod, living trees, firewood, fur and animal hides, feathers, down, processed wool, maple-sugar candy, gravel, stones and rock[2].
Two observations, ours.
The relieved category is defined by destination in the human food chain, which is why hides, wool and feathers, being products of the same animals, are excluded once they are not food.
And the exclusions are enumerated, consistent with the principle described in our pharmacy article that Schedules V and VI are exhaustive lists and the default is taxability.
The consequence for a mixed veterinary practice is that its zero-rated fraction, if any, has to be identified supply by supply against Part IV, rather than inferred from the fact that it treats farm animals.
Which Animals Count
The dividing line among animals, from CRA guidance.
CRA lists among taxable supplies livestock or poultry not normally raised as food or to produce food for human consumption, for example horses, mules, rabbits, exhibition poultry, and mink[4][6].
And in the corresponding zero-rating provision, that any such animal that is not ordinarily used as food for human consumption, or that is sold as bait for use in recreational fishing, is excluded from zero-rating, so that these products are taxable[2].
Three observations, ours.
Horses are taxable, which matters for an equine practice and for the clients of one. A horse is livestock in ordinary speech and is not livestock for this purpose.
The test is what the animal is ordinarily used for, not what any particular owner intends. It is a category test, not a fact test on the individual animal.
And exhibition poultry being named separately from poultry shows how fine the line is. The same species falls on different sides depending on the purpose it is kept for.
We note that these lists relate to supplies of the animals themselves rather than to veterinary services, and that the services position stated earlier makes no distinction between pets and farm animals.
The Rabbit Problem
An oddity in CRA's own published lists, which we set out because it is checkable and because it illustrates how the categories are built.
Rabbits appear in the taxable list, among the livestock not normally raised as food or to produce food for human consumption[4].
Rabbits also appear in the zero-rated feed provision. CRA describes zero-rated feed as including food processing by-products sold in bulk quantities or bags of 20 kg or more used as feed for farm livestock, fish or poultry ordinarily raised for human consumption or to produce wool, or for rabbits, ostriches, rheas, emus, or bees[4].
So on these lists, the sale of a rabbit is taxable and the sale of feed for that rabbit, in a sufficiently large bag, is zero-rated.
Two observations, ours.
We are not suggesting an error. The two provisions do different jobs, and the feed provision names its own species list rather than borrowing the livestock definition.
But it demonstrates that each provision must be read on its own terms. A supplier who established that rabbits are taxable animals and reasoned from there to rabbit feed would reach the wrong answer.
The 20 kg threshold is doing work too, and it is the kind of quantitative line this series has encountered repeatedly. The same feed in a smaller bag is on the other side of it.
A Memorandum Quoting Six Percent
A currency finding that a reader should carry into any research in this area.
CRA's Memorandum 4-4, Agriculture and Fishing, as we retrieved it, states: in this publication taxable means subject to GST at 6% or HST at 14% and zero-rated means subject to GST/HST at 0%[2].
Two observations, ours.
Those rates place the text at a point roughly two decades in the past, since the general GST rate has not been 6 percent for many years.
Which means the substantive lists in that memorandum, which we have relied on above, are of uncertain currency even though CRA continues to publish them.
We have used the memorandum for its structural statements, being what is relieved and what is excluded, and have taken the more granular animal and feed lists from CRA guides that do not carry an obviously stale rate[4][6].
This publication has now flagged stale CRA material several times: a lawyers' disbursements policy from 2004, a taxable benefits example describing Prince Edward Island as a non-participating province, and now a memorandum quoting a rate abolished long ago. The pattern is worth naming. Guidance in less-trafficked corners of the system does not get refreshed, and a practitioner relying on it should check the rates on the page as a dating device before relying on the substance.
The Large Animal Practice
Our own synthesis of what all of this means for a practice that is not purely companion-animal.
A companion-animal clinic is fully taxable across services, drugs, diets and retail. It has no apportionment and full recovery, which is the position described above.
A food-animal practice may have supplies that fall within Part IV, on the source's own qualification that certain agricultural services in support of food-producing animals are zero-rated[5].
An equine practice is dealing with animals CRA lists as taxable, so it is unlikely to reach the agricultural relief at all.
Two consequences.
A mixed practice, treating both companion animals and food-producing livestock, may have a zero-rated fraction and therefore a genuine classification question, though not an apportionment problem, since zero-rated and taxable supplies both support full recovery.
Which is the useful part: even a mixed veterinary practice does not face the pharmacy's difficulty, because neither of its categories destroys input tax credits. The distinction affects what it charges clients, not what it recovers.
We flag that we did not obtain the text of the Part IV provisions said to cover services in support of food-producing animals, and are reporting one source's characterisation of them.
Boarding, Grooming And The Rest
The ancillary lines, which most clinics carry.
Commentary lists boarding, grooming and training as taxable supplies[5].
The wealth management publication describes the breadth of a typical clinic's retail line, noting that beyond dispensing drugs and medications and supplying certain medical supplies, most veterinarians and veterinary clinics also carry and sell a wide line of general merchandise including non-prescription drugs and health supplies, animal care merchandise, a variety of edibles and sometimes beverages, stationery supplies, books and magazines[1].
Two observations, ours.
That retail line would raise real classification questions in a pharmacy, where edibles could engage the basic groceries provisions this publication has described.
In a clinic it mostly does not, because the surrounding supplies are taxable anyway and the recovery position is unaffected either way.
The one line worth checking is edibles. Human food sold to humans is capable of being zero-rated as basic groceries wherever it is sold, and a clinic selling snacks or drinks in a waiting area is selling human food. We did not research this and raise it as a question rather than answering it.
An Agency Question At The End
A final item that connects to an earlier article in this series.
Commentary describes pet cremation services arranged through a third party as an agency arrangement, whose HST treatment depends on the arrangement[5].
Two observations, ours.
That is precisely the question our disbursements article addressed: whether a professional paying a third party is doing so as agent for the client, making the rebilling a reimbursement outside the tax, or on its own account, making it part of its own taxable supply.
The three essential qualities described there apply here without modification, and the practical test is the same: if the crematorium sued for non-payment, would it sue the clinic or the owner?
The consequence is smaller than in a legal practice, because the clinic's supplies are taxable either way and the client is generally an individual who cannot recover. But it decides whether tax should appear on that line of the invoice, and a clinic doing this at volume should settle it once rather than per case.
What The Auditor Actually Examines
The enquiry in practice. This section is our own analysis, and it is shorter than for a mixed supplier because there is less to go wrong.
Whether tax was charged on the full bill, including drugs, diets and ancillary services.
Any revenue treated as zero-rated or exempt, and the provision relied on.
Input tax credits claimed, which for a fully taxable clinic should be close to complete.
Whether credits were under-claimed, which is the more likely error here.
Agricultural supplies in a mixed or food-animal practice, against Part IV.
Third-party arrangements such as cremation, against the agency analysis.
Any human food sold on the premises, against the basic groceries provisions.
Our own observation is that the fourth item is where a clinic most often loses money, and that it is the item nobody is assessed for. A practice that treats itself as a health business and claims conservatively on overhead is leaving recoverable tax behind every quarter.
What Records Survive
A revenue listing by tax status, even where everything is taxable, because the absence of exceptions is itself the position.
The provision relied on for any supply treated as zero-rated.
Complete input tax credit records, including on drugs, equipment and occupancy.
Species and purpose records where agricultural relief is claimed.
Third-party service agreements, establishing whether the clinic contracts as agent or principal.
Product labelling for drugs, since one source's test turns on labelling for veterinary use.
Point of sale configuration for the retail line.
What To Do
Start from the assumption that everything is taxable. Services, drugs, diets, boarding, grooming and retail are all described as taxable supplies.
Do not look for the health exemption. Commentary states plainly that veterinary clinics are not considered health care facilities.
Do not look for the drug zero-rating either. Section 3 requires the drug to be for human use, and a product labelled for veterinary use is on the other side of it.
Claim everything on the input side. A fully taxable business recovers all of it, and this is the error a clinic is most likely to be making.
Understand that taxability is the favourable position. Exemption removes tax from the client's invoice and imposes it permanently on the practice.
Look to Part IV, not Part I, for any relief. What reaches a veterinary practice comes through agriculture and food production, not through medicine.
Check the species lists individually. Horses, mules, rabbits, exhibition poultry and mink are listed as taxable, and rabbit feed is nonetheless in the zero-rated feed provision.
Note the 20 kg threshold on feed, which puts the same product on either side depending on the bag.
Settle the agency question on third-party services. Cremation arranged through another business raises the same test our disbursements article set out.
Date the guidance you rely on. The principal CRA memorandum in this area defines taxable by reference to a GST rate of six percent.
The Limits Of This Analysis
Several caveats matter. This is not tax advice. Everything is stated as verified in August 2026 and requires confirmation. CRA's Memorandum 4-4 as we retrieved it defines taxable by reference to GST at 6 percent and HST at 14 percent, placing the text roughly two decades back; we have used it for structural statements and taken granular lists from other CRA guides. We did not read Schedule VI directly. We did not obtain the text of the Part IV provisions said to cover agricultural services in support of food-producing animals, and report one source's characterisation of them. Two principal sources are commercial publications aimed at veterinarians, one from a wealth management firm and one from an accounting firm marketing to clinic owners. Our own computed input tax credit figure is roughly double the top of a range reported by one of those sources, and we set out that discrepancy without resolving it; we consider our input assumptions the more likely explanation. We raise the treatment of human food sold on clinic premises as a question and do not answer it. We did not research provincial regulation of veterinary practice, veterinary professional corporations, the income tax position of clinics, drug inventory accounting, controlled substances compliance, the treatment of veterinary services supplied to non-residents, or the position in Quebec. The animal and feed lists relate to supplies of animals and feed rather than to veterinary services. All arithmetic is our own, uses an assumed rate and hypothetical figures, and is illustrative only. The inversion framing, the taxability-as-advantage argument, the rabbit observation and the audit examination structure are our own.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do we charge tax when a doctor's office does not?
Are the drugs we dispense zero-rated?
Is being fully taxable bad for us?
Does anything we do get zero-rated?
What about horses?
What are we most likely getting wrong?
References
- RBC Wealth Management Services. The Navigator: Veterinarians, on most healthcare and dental services being exempt from GST/HST while veterinary clinics or veterinary hospitals are not considered to be health care facilities; on medical services provided to household pets, farm animals and the like by a veterinarian being taxable supplies; on agricultural or veterinary drugs not being zero-rated, so that the supply of a drug labelled or supplied for agricultural or veterinary use only is taxable; and on most veterinarians and veterinary clinics carrying a wide line of general merchandise including non-prescription drugs and health supplies, animal care merchandise, edibles and sometimes beverages, stationery supplies, and books and magazines on pet care or animal husbandry. Note: a wealth management firm's publication aimed at veterinarians. rbcwealthmanagement.com
- Canada Revenue Agency. GST/HST Memorandum 4-4, Agriculture and Fishing, on most supplies of agricultural and fishing products being zero-rated; on many products sold by those sectors for human consumption already being zero-rated under Part III of Schedule VI covering basic groceries; on some agricultural products not being zero-rated, including cut flowers, foliage, bedding plants, sod, living trees, firewood, fur and animal hides, feathers, down, processed wool, maple-sugar candy, gravel, stones and rock; and on any animal that is not ordinarily used as food for human consumption, or that is sold as bait for recreational fishing, being excluded from zero-rating under section 9 of Part IV of Schedule VI so that those products are taxable. Note: a CRA memorandum. As retrieved, it defines taxable as subject to GST at 6% or HST at 14%, placing the text roughly two decades back; we have used it for structural statements only. canada.ca
- Canada Revenue Agency GST/HST Ruling 185732, 23 July 2019, Application of GST/HST to Natural Health Products, as reproduced by a tax publication service, on section 3 of Part I of Schedule VI zero-rating a supply of a drug when the drug is for human use and is dispensed by a medical practitioner to an individual for the personal consumption or use of that individual or a related individual, or on the prescription of a medical practitioner or authorized individual for the personal consumption or use of the individual named in the prescription; and on exempt supplies being included in Schedule V while zero-rated supplies are included in Schedule VI. Note: a ruling given to another taxpayer on its own facts, accessed through a secondary reproduction; we rely on it here only for the text of the provision. taxinterpretations.com
- Canada Revenue Agency. Farming Income and the AgriStability and AgriInvest Programs Harmonized Guide, GST/HST Rates, on food processing by-products sold in bulk quantities or bags of 20 kg or more used as feed or as ingredients in feed for farm livestock, fish or poultry ordinarily raised or kept for human consumption or to produce wool, or for rabbits, ostriches, rheas, emus or bees, being zero-rated; on livestock or poultry not normally raised as food or to produce food for human consumption, for example horses, mules, rabbits, exhibition poultry and mink, being taxable; on pesticides having an agricultural purpose and a product class other than domestic being zero-rated; and on sales of quotas and sharecropping arrangements. Note: a CRA guide. canada.ca
- Insight Accounting CPA. CPA for Veterinarians in Ontario (2026), on drug dispensing for animals, prescription and non-prescription, being taxable supplies, with drugs for human consumption zero-rated and drugs for animal consumption taxable; on prescription diets sold to pet owners being taxable; on boarding, grooming and training being taxable; on pet cremation services arranged through a third party being an agency arrangement whose treatment depends on the arrangement; on virtually all HST paid on clinic overhead, equipment, drugs, food and surgical supplies being recoverable, with an annualized ITC volume for a typical $2M-revenue clinic of $35,000 to $50,000; on the only complexity arising where a clinic provides services clearly zero-rated under specific Schedule VI provisions, for example certain agricultural services in support of food-producing animals under Part IV, which most companion-animal clinics do not have; and on the net HST result usually being a remittance position rather than a refund position while ITC capture is full, described as a useful contrast to dental and pharmacy mixed-supplier complexity. Note: a firm marketing accounting services to veterinary clinic owners, dated July 2026. Our own computed figure for a clinic of the size described is roughly double the top of its reported range; we set out that discrepancy in the body of the article. insightscpa.ca
- Canada Revenue Agency. Self-employed Business, Professional, Commission, Farming, and Fishing Income: GST/HST for Farmers and Fishers, on livestock or poultry not normally raised as food or to produce food for human consumption, for example horses, mules and mink, being subject to GST or HST; on feathers, down and processed wool being taxable; on fish or other animals sold as bait for recreational fishing or not ordinarily used as food for human consumption being taxable; on other supplies being taxable at 0 percent and referred to as zero-rated; and on most fish feed and other specified products being zero-rated when sold in quantities of at least 20 kg. Note: a CRA guide. canada.ca
This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not tax advice. CRA's Memorandum 4-4 as retrieved defines taxable by reference to a GST rate of 6 percent, and has been used for structural statements only. Schedule VI was not read directly and the Part IV provisions covering agricultural services were not obtained. Two principal sources are commercial publications aimed at veterinarians. The authors' own computed input tax credit figure is roughly double the top of a range reported by one source, and that discrepancy is disclosed rather than reconciled. All arithmetic is the authors' own and is illustrative only.