- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries
Overview: Contractual Employee Benefits Do Not Always Entitle Public Service Bodies to GST/HST Rebates
The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in IWK Health Centre v. Canada, 2026 FCA 113, confirms that employers cannot claim a GST/HST public service body rebate for employee reimbursements relating to personal healthcare services such as acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, and homeopathy merely because the employer is contractually required to provide those benefits.
The Court also reaffirmed the narrow circumstances in which it may refuse to follow one of its own earlier decisions.
As GST/HST tax lawyer David J. Rotfleisch, a certified Specialist in taxation, observes, “This decision reminds taxpayers that an employee benefit does not automatically become an employer business expense for GST/HST rebate purposes.”
Facts of the Case in IWK Health Centre v. Canada
The appellants, IWK Health Centre and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, were selected public service bodies that reimbursed employees for various healthcare expenses, including acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, and homeopathy services. Under subsection 259(3) of the Excise Tax Act, they claimed public service body rebates based on GST/HST that they argued was deemed to have been paid under section 175 of the Act.
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) denied the rebates. The Tax Court of Canada upheld the CRA’s tax assessments, finding that section 175 did not apply because the healthcare services were acquired by employees for personal consumption rather than “for consumption or use in relation to activities of the employer.” Although the employers were contractually obligated to reimburse the expenses under employment agreements, the Tax Court concluded that this contractual obligation did not create a sufficient connection between the services and the employers’ business activities.
The Tax Court relied primarily on the Federal Court of Appeal’s earlier decisions in ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada. Rather than arguing that those cases could be distinguished on the facts, the appellants argued before the Federal Court of Appeal that both earlier decisions were manifestly wrong and should no longer be followed.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s Decision in IWK Health Centre v. Canada
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals.
The Court explained that it is generally bound by its previous decisions unless those decisions can either be distinguished or are “manifestly wrong.” Referring to Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court confirmed that a previous decision is only manifestly wrong if the earlier panel overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that should have been followed.
The appellants argued that ExxonMobil and Westcoast produced unreasonable results, were inconsistent with one another, and failed to properly consider the overall scheme of the Excise Tax Act. The Court rejected each argument. It concluded that these submissions merely disagreed with the earlier interpretation of the legislation rather than demonstrating that the earlier panels overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that ought to be followed.
The Court also rejected the argument that the earlier decision in General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Canada had been overlooked. Unlike the present appeals, General Motors involved expenses incurred directly by the employer before later being charged to an employee pension plan. The present appeals involved expenses first incurred personally by employees and only later reimbursed by the employer. The Court held that this factual distinction adequately explained why General Motors had not been discussed in the earlier cases.
Accordingly, the Federal Court of Appeal held that it remained bound by ExxonMobil and Westcoast and dismissed the appeals with one set of costs awarded to the CRA.
Why This Decision in IWK Health Centre v. Canada Matters
This judgment reinforces the limited scope of section 175 of the Excise Tax Act. Employers cannot assume that reimbursing employee expenses automatically creates deemed GST/HST paid by the employer for rebate purposes. The critical question remains whether the employee acquired the property or service in relation to the employer’s business activities rather than for personal consumption.
As David J. Rotfleisch notes, “Courts continue to distinguish between expenses that advance the employer’s commercial activities and expenses that primarily benefit the individual employee.”
The decision is equally important for appellate practice. The Court emphasized that a litigant cannot avoid binding earlier decisions of the court simply by arguing that the earlier decision was wrongly decided. The legal threshold is considerably higher. Unless an earlier panel overlooked a relevant statutory provision or binding case law, later panels remain bound to follow the decision of that earlier panel.
As David J. Rotfleisch points out, “The Federal Court of Appeal has again confirmed that certainty in the law generally outweighs mere disagreement with an earlier interpretation of legislation.”
Businesses, hospitals, charities, and other public service bodies that provide employee healthcare benefits should carefully review how employee reimbursements are treated under the GST/HST rules.
Pro Tax Tips: Do Not Assume Every Employee Reimbursement Qualifies for a GST/HST Rebate
Before claiming a GST/HST rebate on employee reimbursements, carefully determine whether the expense was incurred for the employer’s business activities or for the employee’s personal benefit. Simply reimbursing an employee under an employment contract does not automatically make the expense eligible for a rebate. Healthcare services such as massage therapy or acupuncture may still be regarded as personal expenses, even when an employer is obligated to reimburse them.
An experienced Canadian tax lawyer can review your reimbursement policies, analyze whether section 175 of the Excise Tax Act applies, and help ensure that only eligible GST/HST rebate claims are submitted.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does section 259(3) of the Excise Tax Act say?
Section 259(3) provides a GST/HST rebate for eligible selected public service bodies based on “non-creditable tax charged.” One component of that calculation includes GST/HST deemed to have been paid under section 175.
The wording of section 259(3) is set out as follows: if a person, other than certain excluded persons, is on the last day of the claim period or fiscal year a selected public service body, charity, or qualifying non-profit organization, the Minister (CRA) must pay a rebate equal to the specified percentage of the non-creditable tax charged for the claim period, plus any applicable provincial amount.
What does section 175 of the Excise Tax Act say?
Section 175 deems an employer to have paid GST/HST when an employee acquires property or services for consumption or use in relation to the employer’s activities, pays the GST/HST, and is reimbursed by the employer. In IWK Health Centre v. Canada, the Court held that personal healthcare services did not satisfy this requirement because they were acquired primarily for the employee’s personal benefit.
The wording of section 175 is set out as follows: where an employee, partner, or qualifying volunteer acquires property or a service for consumption or use in relation to the activities of the employer, partnership, charity, or public institution, pays the tax, and is reimbursed, the organization is deemed to have received the supply and paid tax equal to a formula amount when the reimbursement is paid.
When is an appeal court allowed not to follow its previous decision?
An earlier decision of an appellate court may only be disregarded by that same court if the decision can be distinguished on the facts or if it is “manifestly wrong.”
When is a previous decision of an appeal court said to be manifestly wrong?
The previous decision of an appellate court is manifestly wrong only where the earlier panel overlooked a relevant statutory provision or failed to follow a case that should have been followed.
Does an appellate court’s omission of an earlier related decision amount to overlooking a decision that it ought to have followed?
An earlier decision is not treated as overlooked simply because it was not cited. In IWK Health Centre v. Canada, the Court indicated that if the earlier case is materially different on the legal issue or facts, its omission may be explainable and not amount to an overlooked authority.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]