Category Archives: Analysis

OECD Public Consultation Document and Public Commentary on the Tax Challenges of Digitalisation

In February and March of 2019, the OECD organized a public consultation process, releasing a consultation document on February 13, 2019, inviting public comments up until March 6, 2019, and holding a conference where industry experts presented key issues on March 13 and 14, 2019. The consultation document sets out a range of possible solutions to what have been identified as important issues for managing the tax challenges of an international digital economy. Despite the limited time frame of the consultation process, approximately 200 comments were received.


The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project consists of 15 discrete action areas which target gaps in the international tax system that enable the shifting of profits away from the jurisdiction of the underlying economic activity. Action 1 of the BEPS Project is focused on tax challenges associated with digitalisation.

The Task Force on the Digital Economy (TFDE) developed the 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report, “Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy”, which was released in October 2015 as part of the full BEPS Package and was endorsed by the G20 Leaders in November 2015.

In June 2016, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the “Inclusive Framework”) was established to collaborate on the implementation of the BEPS Package and the mandate of the TFDE was extended to include the delivery of an interim report by 2018 and a final report in 2020.

In March 2018, the Inclusive Framework delivered its Interim Report which provided analysis, but no conclusions, regarding the tax challenges of the digital economy.

In January 2019, the Inclusive Framework produced a Policy Note which established two pillars, or focal points for discussion, on the digitalisation of the economy: problems raised directly by digitalisation and general BEPS problems exacerbated by digitalisation.

The public consultation document released in March 2019 describes the Inclusive Framework’s proposals concerning the two pillars established by the January 2019 Policy Note.

Proposals and Comments for Specifically Digital Issues: Profit Allocation and Nexus Rules

The key issue addressed by the proposals regarding profit allocation and nexus rules is how “remote” participation in a domestic economy should be taxed. As the Interim Report identified, there are three characteristics of the digital economy which pose taxation difficulties: the possibility of having scale without mass, a heavy reliance on intangible assets, and the significant role of data and user participation.

The public consultation document proposed three solutions: (i) the User Participation approach; (ii) the Marketing Intangibles approach; and (iii) the Significant Economic Presence approach. These proposed solutions all focus on value creation in the user/market jurisdiction, which is unrecognized by the current framework where taxing rights depend on taxable profits. Given that these proposed solutions would require a reallocation of multi-national group profits to user or market jurisdictions, the public consultation document anticipated that changes to existing tax treaty provisions may be necessary to eliminate double taxation.

The User Participation Approach

The User Participation approach is premised on the idea that acquiring users creates brand value, thereby increasing income. This approach would apply exclusively to “digital companies,” such as social media platforms, search engines, and online marketplaces, and would modify current profit allocation rules. The approach would require digital businesses to allocate an amount of profit to jurisdictions where their active and participatory user bases are located, irrespective of whether they have a local, physical presence. For example, the profits of Facebook would be allocated to a given jurisdiction according to user activity in that jurisdiction. To determine the value created by users, an allocation metric would need to be developed and agreed upon.

In respect of the User Participation approach, commentators have expressed concern that the approach:

  • ring-fences subsets of the digital economy (Accountancy Europe)  (;
  • fails to appreciate that traditional companies are increasingly using digital means to achieve their business objectives blurring the distinction between digital and non-digital such that it doesn’t make sense to treat digital companies differently ( (Silicon Valley Tax Directors Group) (Volvo AB);
  • oversimplifies the relevant issues by assuming that users contribute to the value of a company, when in fact users are valuable because they provide data which must then be processed in order to create value; and
  • is too narrow in the scope of activities to which it applies (Canadians for Tax Fairness).
The Marketing Intangibles Approach

Unlike the User Participation approach, the Marketing Intangibles approach would apply more broadly, taking into account digitalisation’s wide economic impact. The Marketing Intangibles approach would exclusively target and reallocate profits from “marketing intangibles,” such as income from brand name, customer data and customer relationships. The Marketing Intangibles approach recognizes that a multinational group can essentially “reach into” a jurisdiction, either remotely or through a limited local presence, to develop marketing intangibles, such as a user/customer base. The approach further recognizes there is an intrinsic functional link between marketing intangibles and the market jurisdiction.

Taking into account this link between marketing intangibles and the market jurisdiction, the Marketing Intangibles approach would modify current transfer pricing and treaty rules to require that marketing intangibles, and their associated risks, be allocated to the market jurisdiction. This would enable the market jurisdiction to tax some or all of the non-routine income associated with such intangibles and the related risks. All other income would be allocated among members of the multinational group based on existing transfer pricing principles.

In respect of the Marketing Intangibles approach, public commentators have submitted that the approach:

The Significant Economic Presence Approach

Echoing formulary apportionment approaches to multi-jurisdictional taxation, the Significant Economic Presence approach would update the traditional nexus approach such that a digital business would be taxed like a traditional business. This approach would achieve this by looking at a number of factors to determine whether an organization has a “significant economic presence” in a jurisdiction. The OECD lists several relevant factors: the existence of a user base and the associated data input; the volume of digital content derived from the jurisdiction; billing and collecting in a local currency or with a local form of payment; the maintenance of a website in a local language; responsibility for the final delivery of goods to customers or the provision by the enterprise of other support services such as after-sales service or repairs and maintenance; and sustained marketing and sales promotion activities, either online or otherwise, to attract customers. The global profits of a multinational group would then be allocated to jurisdictions where the group has a significant economic presence.

In respect of the Significant Economic Presence approach, public commentators have submitted that the approach:

  • risks creating a disconnect between tax outcomes and other legal and commercial circumstances (the global organization, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants);
  • will be difficult to develop because of its need to identify appropriate factors to establish a nexus (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants);
  • may be politically difficult to implement because some countries will inevitably win or lose from such a system (i.e. the tax base of countries which currently have nexus will likely decrease, whereas the tax base of countries which do not currently have nexus will increase) (Accountancy Europe);
  • will struggle to achieve consensus on the factors that will create significant economic presence, the allocation bases to be used, and what happens to losses in the value chain (;
  • will not work because no set of connecting factors will ever be precise enough to consistently and meaningfully capture whether value has been created in the market;
  • fails to recognizes that consumption is the only value attributable to the market (not the profit of the corporate group as a whole), and as such, consumption taxes are the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with the challenges in this area;
  • is preferable because it would create more fundamental change, even if the details still need to be worked out (Canadians for Tax Fairness).

Proposals for BEPS Issues Exacerbated by Digitalisation

The key challenge addressed by the proposals regarding global anti-base erosion is the shifting of the tax base to low tax jurisdictions. The public consultation document considers a proposed solution which includes two distinct elements: an income inclusion rule and a tax on base eroding payments.

The income inclusion rule would tax the income of a foreign branch of a controlled entity domestically if that income was subject to a low effective tax rate in the foreign jurisdiction. The income tax would be calculated under domestic law, with shareholders entitled to a credit for tax paid to the foreign jurisdiction.

The tax on base eroding payments would deny a deduction or treaty relief for certain payments, unless those payments were subject to an effective tax rate at or above a minimum rate.

Both elements would be implemented by way of changes to domestic law and tax treaties, and would include a co-ordination or ordering rule to avoid the risk of double taxation that might otherwise arise where more than one jurisdiction seeks to apply these rules to the same structure or arrangements.

In respect of the proposals for an income inclusion rule and a tax on base eroding payments, public commentators have submitted that the proposals:

  • do not have any “digital triggers” (i.e. they also apply to traditional businesses). (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants);
  • will be difficult to implement because of challenges associated with developing a framework acceptable to all that does not impose undue administrative burdens and uncertainty, including the risk of double taxation (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants);
  • risk negatively affecting businesses’ legitimate economic activities in low-tax jurisdictions with additional tax or costly restructuring (Accountancy Europe);
  • may negatively affect countries that are able to support business activities that create value, but do not require a substantial corporate income tax base to finance their public spending (Accountancy Europe);
  • will be difficult to administer because it may require every piece of income or expense to be tested individually in relation to its effective taxation (American Chamber of Commerce in Germany);
  • should be limited to wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality (i.e. they should essentially be avoidance rules) and should not apply to genuine economic activities (;
  • should not apply to payments to or from third parties, and should only be applied to low-taxed passive income (dividends, interest, and royalties); (; and
  • risk imposing double taxation on tax exempt investors (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board).


The public consultation process demonstrates the wide variety of stakeholders who have concerns regarding the digitalisation of the economy and the OECD’s response. This variety, and the range of the comments submitted, further indicates the difficulties that will be faced in achieving any amount of consensus.

The comments themselves offer rich, though disparate, insights into the digitalisation of the economy. We are looking forward to seeing the OECD’s proposed final solution to be delivered by the end of 2020. Over the next year, we will continue to follow the process closely, enabling us to help our international clients navigate the new regime.

Up Next

Stay tuned for our next post, which comments on the OECD’s new Programme of Work. The document, which calls for intensifying international discussions around the two main pillars, was approved during the May 28-29 plenary meeting of the Inclusive Framework, which brought together 289 delegates from 99 member countries and jurisdictions and 10 observer Organisations.


Affaire Singh: Responsabilité fiscale de l’administrateur

La récente décision de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt dans Singh v. The Queen[1] nous rappelle l’importance pour l’administrateur d’une société de communiquer sa démission en conformité avec les lois corporatives applicables.

Conditions d’application de la responsabilité fiscale de l’administrateur

Selon l’article 323 de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise[2] [et son équivalent en impôt fédéral selon l’article 227.1 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada)], un administrateur est solidairement responsable du paiement de la taxe nette impayée d’une société s’il était administrateur au moment où la société était tenue de verser cette somme.

L’administrateur n’encourt de responsabilité que si la société :

  1. a entrepris des procédures de dissolution ou liquidation;
  2. a fait une cession ou si une ordonnance de faillite a été rendue contre elle; ou
  3. si un certificat a été enregistré auprès de la Cour fédérale précisant les sommes pour lesquelles la société est responsable et qu’il y a eu défaut d’exécution de ces sommes[3].

L’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’« ARC ») peut ainsi cotiser un administrateur une fois les conditions remplies. Par contre, l’ARC ne peut cotiser l’administrateur que dans les deux ans suivant le moment où il a cessé pour la dernière fois d’être administrateur[4].

Afin d’exclure sa responsabilité, l’administrateur peut également démontrer qu’il a agi avec autant de soin, de diligence et de compétence pour prévenir le manquement de la société que ne l’aurait faire une personne raisonnablement prudente dans les mêmes circonstances[5].

Affaire Singh

Dans l’affaire Singh v. The Queen, M. Singh a été cotisé par l’ARC relativement à la TPS due par une société pour laquelle il est était administrateur. M. Singh n’a pas soulevé lors de l’audience une défense de diligence raisonnable, mais a soumis qu’il avait démissionné de son poste d’administrateur en 2011, soutenant donc que la cotisation émise en 2016 était prescrite.

Afin de démontrer qu’il a quitté son poste d’administrateur, M. Singh a mis en preuve les documents suivants :

  1. lettre de démission à titre d’administrateur signée en 2011 qui porte la mention de transmission par messager à la société. De plus, dans le cadre de son témoignage, M. Singh a également indiqué qu’une copie de la lettre avait été remise à l’autre administrateur de la société, Mme Nadia Singh, son épouse;
  2. une copie du registre des administrateurs démontrant que M. Singh a été nommé administrateur en 2004 et qu’il a démissionné de son poste d’administrateur en 2011;
  3. une copie de la résolution des actionnaires approuvant la démission de M. Singh;
  4. une copie de la résolution des actionnaires indiquant que Mme Nadia Singh devenait l’unique administratrice;
  5. le consentement pour agir de Mme Nadia Singh.

Prétention de l’ARC

L’ARC soutenait que les preuves soumises par M. Singh n’étaient pas suffisantes afin d’établir la démission de celui-ci à titre d’administrateur. Afin d’appuyer sa position, l’ARC soulevait plusieurs motifs, dont le fait qu’aucun avis de modification n’avait été produit relativement à la démission de M. Singh en vertu de la Loi sur les renseignements exigés des personnes morales[6] de la province de l’Ontario.

Décision du juge

Suivant l’analyse de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions[7](Ontario) (la « LSAO »), le juge conclut qu’en vertu de la LSAO le mandat d’un administrateur prend fin lorsqu’il démissionne et cette démission prend effet à la date de réception par la société d’un écrit à cet effet, sans autre formalité[8].

Ainsi, puisque la démission de M. Singh a été faite conformément à la LSAO, le juge accepte la preuve de démission datée de 2011 et accueille l’appel concluant que la cotisation n’a pas été émise dans les deux ans suivant la démission.


Cette affaire rappelle bien l’importance pour l’administrateur qui démissionne de respecter les lois corporatives applicables, et que lorsque cela est fait, l’ARC ne peut exiger plus de ce dernier en tentant de recouvrer les sommes dues par la société.

[1] 2019 CCI 120.

[2] Loi sur la taxe d’accise, L.R.C. (1985), ch. E-15.

[3] Par. 323 (2) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise.

[4] Par. 323 (5) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise.

[5] Par. 323 (3) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise.

[6] Loi sur les renseignements exigés des personnes morales, L.R.O. 1990, chap. C.39.

[7] Loi sur les sociétés par actions, L.R.O. 1990, chap. B.16.

[8] Par. 121 (2) de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions.


Proposed Legislative Changes to the Taxation of Employee Stock Options in Canada

In the 2019 Federal Budget, the Canadian government outlined its proposal to introduce a $200,000 annual limit on employee stock option grants for employees of “large, long-established, mature firms”. The government takes the view that the current regime of preferential tax treatment for employee stock options does not help to achieve the policy objective of supporting younger and growing Canadian businesses, but instead, disproportionally benefits executives of large, mature companies who take advantage of the rules as a preferred form of compensation. 

In an effort to provide further clarifications to the proposed new stock options rules, the Department of Finance released a Notice of Ways and Means Motionon June 17, 2019.

Current Regime

Under the current stock option rules, pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”), at the time when employee stock options are exercised by an employee, a taxable benefit is added to the employee’s taxable income to the extent the fair market value (“FMV”) of the underlying shares exceeds the exercise price specified in the option agreement. However, provided that at the time of the grant, the options are not in-the-money (i.e. exercise price is not less than FMV) and, generally, common shares are issued upon the exercise of the options, the employee is entitled to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) in the amount of 50% of the taxable benefit determined under subsection 7(1).

New Proposed Amendments

The new draft legislative proposals, if enacted as proposed, would impose a $200,000 annual vesting limit on employee stock option grants (based on the fair market value of the underlying shares at the time the options are granted) that could be entitled to receive the 50% deduction allowed under paragraph 110(1)(d). 

Under the new regime, a vesting year in respect of an option agreement is determined by either: (i) the calendar year in which the employee is first able to exercise his or her option as specified in the option agreement; or (ii) if the option agreement does not specify a vesting time, the first calendar year in which the option can reasonably be expected to be exercised.

The new annual vesting limit would not apply to employee stock options granted by “specified persons” as defined in the Act to mean: (i) Canadian-controlled private corporations (“CCPCs”); and (ii) non-CCPCs that meet certain prescribed conditions (yet to be released).

In addition, the new draft legislative proposals introduce a tax deduction for an employer who enters into an option agreement with its employee to grant non-qualified securities. The amount of deductions the employer is entitled to claim against its taxable income for a taxation year would be equal to the amount of taxable benefit its employees realize under subsection 7(1) in respect of non-qualified securities.

An employer would be entitled to claim such deductions under circumstances where the following conditions are met: (i) at the time of entering into the agreement, the employer notifies the employee in writing that the security is a non-qualified security; (ii) the employer notifies the Minister of National Revenue that the security is a non-qualified security in prescribed form filed with the employer’s income tax return in the year the agreement is entered into; and (iii) the employer is a specified person and the employees would have otherwise been entitled to claim the deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d).

In order to be entitled to claim the tax deduction, it is critical that the employer designates the options that would have otherwise qualified for a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) as non-qualified securities by specifying this in the option agreement.

The new draft legislative proposals will apply to employee stock options granted on or after January 1, 2020.

The federal government is currently seeking input on the characteristics of companies that should be considered “start-up, emerging, and scale-up companies” for purposes of the prescribed conditions as well as views on the administrative and compliance implications associated with putting such characteristics into legislation. Submissions of any comments with respect to the prescribed conditions for the consideration by the Department of Finance are due on September 16, 2019.


Taxation of the Global Digital Economy

On January 29, 2019 the OECD announced that the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS has made important steps towards addressing tax challenges associated with the digitalisation of the global economy, committing to deliver a progress report to the G20 Finance Ministers in June 2019 and to release a long-term solution in 2020.


The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project consists of 15 discrete action areas, which target gaps in the international tax system that enable the shifting of profits away from the jurisdiction of the underlying economic activity. Action 1 of the BEPS Project is focused on tax challenges associated with digitalisation.

The Task Force on the Digital Economy (TFDE), with participation from more than 45 countries including all OECD and G20 members, was established to carry out the work of Action 1.

The TFDE developed the 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy (the “Action 1 Report”),[1] which was released in October 2015 as part of the full BEPS Package and was endorsed by the G20 Leaders in November 2015.

Following the release of the BEPS Package in October 2015, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (“Inclusive Framework”) was established in June 2016. The Inclusive Framework includes 125 countries and jurisdictions brought together to collaborate on the implementation of the BEPS Package. Upon the establishment of the Inclusive Framework, the mandate of the TFDE was extended to include the delivery of an interim report by 2018 and a final report in 2020.

In March 2018, the Inclusive Framework delivered its Interim Report, which provided analysis but no conclusions regarding the tax challenges of the digital economy. 

Tax Challenges of the Digitalised Economy

The tax challenges recognized in Action 1 Report and the Interim Report include the questions:

  • where tax should be paid and in what amount in a world where businesses can be heavily involved in the economy of different jurisdictions without any material physical presence;
  • how enterprises in the digital economy add value and make their profits;
  • how transfer pricing rules should account for intangible value drivers such as branding and innovation;
  • how the digital economy relates to the concepts of source and residence; and
  • how to address BEPS risks exacerbated by the digitalising economy.

The Policy Note

In January 2019, the Inclusive Framework produced a Policy Note, which sets out that renewed international discussions on the digitalisation of the economy will focus on two central pillars: (i) problems raised directly by digitalisation; and (ii) general BEPS problems exacerbated by digitalisation.

The first pillar will focus on how the existing rules dividing up the right to tax the income of multinational enterprises among jurisdictions could be modified to address the challenges of digitalisation.

Under the first pillar, the Policy Note identifies that proposed approaches require reconsidering current transfer pricing rules, going beyond the arm’s length principle, and abandoning the idea that taxing rights must be determined by reference to a physical presence.  In addition, the Policy Note indicates that new ideas about profit attribution and nexus may need to be developed, and that doing so could require changes to tax treaties and changes to the permanent establishment threshold.

The second pillar will focus on how to resolve remaining BEPS issues not directly associated with digitalisation, recognizing that features of the digitalised economy exacerbate more general BEPS issues.


The following are concerns and questions which any solution to the digitalisation of the global economy will be required to face.

How far?

There is no doubt that digitalisation has created substantial changes to the global economy and that traditional taxation rules need to be reconsidered. However, how far this reconsideration should go remains a question.

Transfer Pricing without the arm’s length principle?

It is unclear how to develop rules that don’t rely on the arm’s length principle or how this shift away from a core element of traditional transfer pricing could be justified.

Transfer Pricing without the concept of permanent establishment?

Additionally, how could taxing rights be determined without reference to physical presence, and under what authority could such rights be exercised? Once physical presence is removed as a threshold, what would prevent a jurisdiction from taxing everyone everywhere?

Is Consensus Possible?

An important element of the OECD’s pending solution is that it is to be “consensus-based”, which is a tall order especially given the diverse interests at stake. It is difficult to imagine how the required consensus could be formed where the participating jurisdictions have such divergent interests.

Relation to Unilateral Efforts

How will a solution to the challenges of the digital economy operate with the various unilateral efforts that are emerging?

The Traditional Approach is Still Required

There will not be a purely digital economy so any new rules will have to be appropriate to both a digital and a traditional economy. 

With respect to the tax challenges of digitalisation, members of the Inclusive Framework renewed their commitment to reaching a long-term solution by 2020, and have agreed to deliver an update to the G20 Finance Ministers in June 2019.  With so many questions and such a complicated mandate, it will be impressive if the Inclusive Framework is able to report on meaningful progress before the deadline.

Up Next

In March 2019, the OECD held a public consultation and invited submissions from stakeholders on potential solutions to the tax challenges arising from the digital economy. Despite the limited timeframe, approximately 200 comments were received, some referring to the proposed solutions as “draconian” and other suggesting solutions should go further and make the tax base as “broad as possible”. Stay tuned for more details on the consultation process and results.

[1]       OECD (2015), Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action 1 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris.


Cotisation par mouvement de trésorerie : « On n’utilise pas un canon pour tuer une mouche »


Dans une décision récente de la Cour du Québec (Dion c. l’Agence du revenu du Québec, 2018 QCCQ 10280), division des petites créances, l’honorable Juge Dortélus réitère à l’Agence du revenu Québec (« Revenu Québec ») l’importance d’appliquer les méthodes estimatives avec rigueur, sans excès ni exagération.

Dans cette affaire, Revenu Québec a utilisé la méthode estimative mouvement de trésorerie afin d’ajouter des revenus présumés non déclarés à Mme Dion pour les années d’imposition 2006, 2007 et 2008.

Initialement, le dossier de Mme Dion avait été sélectionné pour vérification dans le cadre du projet organisationnel de lutte contre l’évasion fiscale selon les « Indices de richesse ». Dans le cas particulier de Mme Dion, les indices de richesse qui avaient attiré l’attention de Revenu Québec étaient qu’elle était propriétaire d’un immeuble ayant une valeur de 352 400$ et propriétaire d’un véhicule ayant une valeur de 30 366$, ce qui, selon les propos du juge, est « une hypothèse très mince d’indices de richesse ».

Le Juge Dortélus réitère à Revenu Québec l’importance de prendre en considération la réalité du contribuable, mais aussi d’analyser sérieusement les motifs de contestation de celui-ci lorsqu’il y a utilisation par les autorités fiscales d’une méthode estimative :

[39] Lorsque cette méthode indirecte de cotisation est appliquée, on doit tenir compte de la situation réelle du contribuable qui connaît et possède des renseignements dont le l’ARQ ne dispose pas. On ne doit pas écarter sans motif valable ces renseignements, ce qui semble avoir été le cas dans la situation ou Mme Dion.

Dans le cadre de l’audience, Mme Dion soulève que les revenus ajoutés suivant la vérification ne sont pas des revenus, en démontrant, entre autres, qu’un montant traité comme une augmentation de placement par Revenu Québec était en fait des sommes provenant de ses comptes bancaires.

De plus, Mme Dion conteste le calcul du coût de vie effectuée par Revenu Québec selon les données de Statistiques Canada, puisque celui-ci ne reflète pas sa situation réelle. Mme Dion a démontré lors de l’audience que son coût de vie réel était jusqu’à trois fois moindre que celui calculé par Revenu Québec.

Finalement, le Juge Dortélus rappelle qu’un contribuable continue de bénéficier de la présomption de bonne foi prévue à l’article 2805 du Code civil du Québec, et ce, même s’il fait l’objet d’une vérification selon une méthode estimative. À cet effet, il précise que cette présomption légale n’est pas renversée par la seule présence d’indices de richesse qui pourraient mener les autorités fiscales à soupçonner qu’un contribuable n’aurait pas déclaré l’ensemble de ses revenus.

Dans le cadre de l’audience, Mme Dion a été en mesure de démontrer la non-fiabilité de la méthode utilisée par Revenu Québec et que le calcul du coût de vie ne tenait pas compte de sa réalité. Son appel a donc été accueilli et les avis de cotisation ont été annulés.