Finally, an answer to the tax-deadline mystery
Documents from 2015 show revenue agency’s mistake took days to be rectified
When bureaucrats mistakenly extended the tax filing deadline by five days back in 2015 on a Friday afternoon, tax preparers quickly began questioning Canada Revenue Agency officials about the notice.
But no action was taken until the Monday after, when officials only took down the post and announced the deadline would remain April 30.
Each year, a grace-period message is posted on the CRA’s EFILE webpage and sent to approximately 45,000 tax preparers, indicating that if they have transmission errors, late filing penalties will not be assessed as long as the tax return is submitted within five business days of April 30.
But last year, details from an old notice — from 2014, when the agency had been hacked as a result of the Heartbleed bug — were mistakenly reused.
According to one email sent Monday, April 27, 2015, an unnamed send- er tells CRA assistant commissioner Frank Vermaeten and deputy assistant commissioner Cynthia Leblanc: “The first version of Friday . . . is so unexpected since nothing happen (sic) that would warrant an extension this year. The message was clearly a human error. So after reviewing the situation, we removed the incorrect info Monday morning and issued the right one.”
But confusion ensued. The following day, then-public works minister Diane Finley announced that filers would get a reprieve if they filed within the mistaken extra days with no penalties.
At the time, officials would say little about the error. So the Star filed a request under the Access to Information Act, seeking details on how the mistake was made and discovered and, more than a year after the request, documents — some heavily redacted — were finally made available.
Here is a timeline constructed based on the released documents.
Friday, April
24 2:30 p.m.: The standard message about a grace period — usually five days, but changed to four days — for those filing electronically was to be emailed to 45,000 tax preparers who file electronically. “Unfortunately, the standard message was not used. Instead, a slightly modified version of the previous year (the Heartbleed year) was used.”
3:30 p.m.: The same message posted to EFILE website.
4:45 p.m.: First question lands in CRA inbox. Beginning at
5:16 p.m., clarification emails are exchanged between CRA employees and EFILErs. A tax preparer sends email asking if the email was worded correctly, though he gives no indication to suggest he believed the deadline had changed. Reply indicated: “this was not a special year, and that only the standard grace period would apply,” with a promise to review the wording.
6:24 p.m.: Another similar question comes via email to the CRA.
7:02 p.m.: Another inquiry comes in, noting that the individual called the EFILE helpdesk and was told by agent that this was a “blanket extension” for returns submitted by EFILErs. There is regular ongoing interaction between EFILE community and the CRA. “As a result, none of these clarification questions seemed out of the ordinary, given the size of the distribution (list).”
Monday, April 27 8:30 a.m.: A manager in the CRA’s legislative section notes the posted message has errors in it. 8:45 a.m.: Staff note by phone that there was an error on the posting to the EFILE webpage and it was being corrected. Given that it was believed the error had been dealt with on Friday afternoon, deputy assistant commissioner and assistant commis- sioner are not alerted.
9:37 a.m.: Revised message drafted. Request made to have original message removed from webpage, pending revisions.
10:59 a.m.: Confirmation received. Message taken down.
11:44 a.m.: Revised message sent to all those who use EFILE via email.
1:29 p.m.: Revised message posted to EFILE web page, with a tweak at
3:11 p.m. 5 p.m.: A briefing note is drafted.
10:42 p.m.: Email says the minister has decided to extend the filing deadline.
When asked whether those responsible for the mistake have been disciplined in any way, the Canada Revenue Agency said actions taken against the individual or individuals responsible for human error have been addressed by appropriate parties, declining to discuss due to privacy issues.
It added that since the 2015 mistake, all communications aimed at tax preparers who use EFILE are reviewed and additional level of approvals are required. As well, it now sends out notifications earlier to give the industry appropriate time to act.