Fairness in Tax Administration Research
Final Report

Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency

Contract Award Date: January 9, 2017

Delivery Date: July 21, 2017

Contract Number: 46558-174351/001/CY

POR 093-16

Produced by: Quorus Consulting Group

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

For more information on this report, please email:media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Political Neutrality Certification

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Quorus Consulting Group Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.

Signed:

Rick Nadeau, President

Quorus Consulting Group Inc.

Executive summary

Research Purpose and Objectives

An important component to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) mandate is to ensure that they treat all taxpayers fairly under the Income Tax Act. The challenge for CRA is that they do not have a clear understanding of how Canadian taxpayers define fairness and they do not have a clear measure of how they are perceived on this metric. Therefore, CRA has identified a need for primary market research to gain specific insights into the following:

• Explore the concept of fairness in tax administration and what it means to taxpayers;
• Determine which factors influence fairness and to what extent;
• Assess taxpayers’ current perception of CRA on fairness;
• Assess the Agency’s work on the following five specific dimensions Footnote 1 by measuring different interactions and processes on the fairness variable:
  1. Perceptions of outcome and decisions made;
  2. Perceptions of processes and procedures;
  3. Perceptions of how the taxpayer was treated (with courtesy, dignity, respect);
  4. Perceptions of accuracy, relevance, ease of understanding and timeliness of information;
  5. Perceptions of fairness of consequences (i.e., penalties, interests).

The findings from this research will feed into a strategy developed to realize the goals and priorities set forth in the Minister’s mandate. The results will also be leveraged into a communication strategy and will serve as a benchmark upon which to track the established measures and improve upon them.

Summary of Findings – Focus Group Phase

What is Important When Accessing a Government of Canada Service

Participants were asked to list what is important to them when accessing a Government of Canada service. Five themes were generated and can be summarized with the following acronym - SPACE: Simplicity, Person to Person, Accuracy, Caring and Efficiency. These themes capture the following priorities:

• Simplicity is a synonym for “ease of use” when it comes to using resources such as websites, when it comes to understanding information and when it comes to the various forms and documents they may need to fill out.
• Person to person emphasizes the importance of having a “human” option to contact and that this option is easy to find and easy to reach.
• Accuracy focuses on the importance of consistently providing up-to-date and correct information.
• Caring alludes specifically to having customer service representatives who not only have the “right attitude” but who also leave the caller with the impression that they empathize with their situation.
• Efficiency is mostly about not wasting the citizen’s time – this includes reasonable wait times when calling into a call centre, minimizing redundant explanations when being transferred and quick turnaround time on documentation or information requested.

These themes and priorities are generally very consistent across all types of participants and expectations are the same irrespective of the service they are using or the Department with which they are dealing.

Rating the CRA on Fairness

Participants were asked to rate the CRA in terms of being “fair” based on their own personal interpretation of fairness. Using a 10-point scale, where 10 is the most favourable rating, participants rated the Agency somewhere in the area of 7 out of 10. This exercise also helped shed light on broader considerations related to rating the CRA on this specific dimension.

• Participants with less experience dealing with the CRA are more likely to rate the Agency favourably in terms of fairness.
• Perceptions are shaped by personal experiences as well as what participants see and hear around them through the experiences of friends, family members and co-workers.
• Unless there is evidence to the contrary, there is an assumption that the Agency is fair.
• Some participants are very reluctant to give any Government department, branch or service a high performance score on anything. For instance, for some participants, a score of 7 is considered an excellent score for a Government agency.
• Context is important. Tax rates can play a role, as some participants indicated that if they had not been informed or reminded that the CRA does not determine tax rates, the fairness rating they gave would have been lower.

Although not statistically meaningful, it is worth noting that participants who gave high or low scores in terms of fairness, also tended to give equally high or low scores when it comes to transparency, accuracy and being client-service oriented.

Defining Fairness

Participants tended to interpret “fairness” the following way: It is the equal application of the tax laws across all taxpayers irrespective of who they are or where they live. Although the focus was on equality across taxpayers, some added that fairness also meant applying the law but with a touch of humanity, empathy and flexibility.

Driving Fairness

When rating the CRA on fairness, participants are prone to focusing on isolated events, incidents or interactions that happened with the CRA. Examples include an audit, an information or documentation request and the CRA revisiting a tax return long after having issued a notice of assessment. The incident may have happened only once, it may have happened a number of years ago and it may not have even happened to them. More often than not, the “unfair” component to these interactions is when they are seen as unjustified, when they involve a lot of effort or time, or when the query is seen as unexpected.

Another contributing factor to a weak or a weaker rating on fairness is a sense that there is an imbalance in power and knowledge between the CRA and the taxpayer. Ultimately, this imbalance in power and knowledge is seen as unfair. Common scenarios include:

• When it comes to the interpretation of tax laws, participants feel that it is the CRA’s interpretation of the law that will carry the day.
• Participants strongly believe that, in the eyes of the CRA, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent, when they feel it should be the other way around.
• Some believe that the CRA charges interest on money owed to them but do not pay interest to the taxpayer if the situation is reversed, that the rate they pay the CRA is higher than the rate the CRA pays back and that the trigger date is different.
• Audits were raised as a point of contention for some participants, even those who have never been through one before.
  • Many wondered how the CRA chooses who they audit.
  • If the CRA spent as much time auditing large corporations as they do auditing average Canadians, they would see a much larger return on their efforts.
  • The level of effort that the taxpayer is expected to invest during an audit is unfair, especially if the audit process stretches over many weeks and months.

  Participants were asked what they thought about the CRA using external and public sources of information such as social media, including Facebook, to feed into audit assessment activities. At first, many did not seem comfortable with this idea but reassurances that the information used is “external and public” and fully accessible to anyone with an Internet connection appeased many concerns.

• CRA has a certain reputation with some participants. Even if the citizen is entitled to some latitude, participants feel they are dealing with the large, unbending and intimidating CRA.
• An issue that was often raised is the complexity of the tax return and the perception that taxpayers are at a knowledge disadvantage when it comes to tax credits to which they may be entitled.
• There is also a perception that the CRA is very pro-active when it comes to finding tax revenue through their assessments but that they do not go out of their way to let taxpayers know if they missed out on a tax credit.
• Having to buy software or hire an accountant to maximize their tax return is seen by some as unfair.

Reactions to the Working Definition of “Fairness”

At the end of each session, participants were presented with what was, at the time, the CRA’s working definition of fairness. Most participants would agree that it does not reflect what they see today but they would like the CRA to be this way. Having “well-informed taxpayers” is seen as the pre-condition for success on which the Agency will need to work the most and is perhaps the greatest challenge to overcome. The three pillars on which trust will be informed seemed appropriate although some suggested that there should be some reference to simplicity, probably with respect to processes.

Methodology – Focus Group Phase

The research methodology consisted of ten traditional, in-facility focus groups with Canadian adults at least 18 years old. These sessions were conducted in five different locations across the country: Halifax, NS, Brampton, ON, Saskatoon, SK, Vancouver, BC and Montreal, QC. Sessions in each city were split based on the following criteria:

• Group 1 – General population
• Group 2 – Canadian taxpayers who have interacted with the CRA within the past twelve months (other than for sending in personal or business tax returns).

The recruitment process also sought a good representation of men and women, household income categories, and age groups. Quorus designed a recruitment screener and the moderation guide for this study and the CRA translated all the research materials.

All focus groups were 2 hours long and moderated by Rick Nadeau, one of Quorus’ bilingual senior researchers on the Government of Canada Standing Offer.

Qualitative Research Disclaimer

Qualitative research seeks to develop insight and direction rather than quantitatively projectable measures. The purpose is not to generate “statistics” but to hear the full range of opinions on a topic, understand the language participants use, gauge degrees of passion and engagement and to leverage the power of the group to inspire ideas. Participants are encouraged to voice their opinions, irrespective of whether or not that view is shared by others.

Due to the sample size, the special recruitment methods used, and the study objectives themselves, it is clearly understood that the work under discussion is exploratory in nature. The findings are not, nor were they intended to be, projectable to a larger population.

Specifically, it is inappropriate to suggest or to infer that few (or many) real world users would behave in one way simply because few (or many) participants behaved in this way during the sessions. This kind of projection is strictly the prerogative of quantitative research.

Summary of Findings – Survey Phase

Overall Assessment

The survey started with an overall assessment of the CRA. Survey respondents were asked to rate the CRA’s performance in terms of the administration of taxes and benefits using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 meant “terrible” and 10 meant “excellent”. Nearly half of respondents (49%) rated the CRA from 8 to 10, 44% rated it from 4 to 7, and 5% gave it a score of 3 or less.

Respondents were then asked to rate the CRA’s performance on seven specific dimensions. The CRA seems to be performing the best when it comes to being accurate, with 61% of respondents providing a top-three score (8-10). Top scores then drop when it comes to being efficient (49%), fair (49%), accessible (44%), having services that are easy to use (44%) and being transparent (43%). Being client-service oriented was the dimension that received the lowest performance scores (top-box score of 40%).

• Significant differences across demographic groups reveal a number of trends. For instance, respondents under 50 years old are consistently more likely to assign scores from 8 to 10 on these dimensions, and most elements are more likely to be rated positively by residents in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland, by those who speak a non-official language at home, and those who prepared their tax return on their own or with the assistance of a friend, family member, or volunteer. Overall, those less likely to see the CRA in a positive light are self-employed, and households earning over $80,000.

Additional analysis on how respondents rated the CRA on fairness reveals trends that are very consistent with what surfaced in the focus group phase of this research study. The incidence of interaction with the CRA seems connected with perceptions of fairness, or conversely, the less someone needs to interact with the CRA, the higher their perception of fairness. As well, the simpler a respondent’s tax situation, the fairer they view the CRA, and finally, perceptions of fairness grow weaker with age.

When it comes to understanding the impact of fairness on how the CRA is perceived overall, correlation analysis reveals that being efficient is most likely to be correlated with how the CRA is seen overall. Then perceptions of being client-service oriented, being fair and being accurate are the next set of dimensions that seem most closely correlated with overall perceptions of the CRA as a tax administrator.

Further correlation analysis reveals that there is a relationship between perceptions of fairness and four other key overall dimensions. The strongest relationship appears to be with transparency, followed by efficiency, accuracy and being client-service oriented. Improving satisfaction on the important elements of transparency and being client-service oriented are where the CRA stands to see the biggest gains in terms of being considered fair. Accuracy and efficiency should not be ignored – while satisfaction scores on these two dimensions are stronger, there is still room for improvement. Efforts in these two areas will also lead to improvements in how the CRA is seen in terms of fairness.

Fairness Drilldown

The CRA was assessed along a full range of specific dimensions and activities related to key performance metrics such as fairness, accessibility, transparency, and being customer-service oriented.

Preparing and Filing Taxes, and Assessing Tax Returns

Roughly half of survey respondents agree (rating of 8 to 10) that the process of gathering the information to support their return is simple (51%), and that the level of effort or cost to prepare their return is fair (49%). Respondents were less likely to agree that the CRA proactively communicates to them the tax credits and benefits to which they are entitled (18% gave the lowest ratings of 0 to 3), that the CRA works with them to find payment options when the amount owed is difficult to manage (35% gave a score of 8 to 10), and that the CRA would be flexible if unforeseen circumstances affected their ability to file or pay on time (34%).

Another set of statements was presented to respondents to evaluate the CRA’s performance assessing tax returns. The CRA gets high marks for their timeliness in sending refunds (70% assigned a score of 8 to 10) and assessing tax returns (65%). They perform moderately well when it comes to explaining the results of the tax return assessment (53%), but are not seen as performing well in terms of charging fair penalties and interest (31%). It is important to note that 13% indicate they do not know if the penalties and interests are fair, likely because they have not had to pay them.

Support and Resources Available to Canadians

Fully half of survey respondents (51%) agree the CRA provides support and resources that are accurate, but agreement falls when asked if the support and resources provided are easy to access (39%), and easy to understand (38%).

Efforts the CRA Makes to Ensure Taxpayers Are Compliant

Respondents do not seem to feel that the CRA is balanced in its approach to communicating oversights or errors in tax returns. If the taxpayer overlooked something in their return and owed more money than expected, 72% agree the CRA would bring this to their attention. Conversely, if credits are overlooked by the taxpayer, only 40% are confident that the CRA would bring that to their attention when they review their return.

Some improvements seem warranted regarding communication-related aspects of audits and requests for information and documentation. In particular, nearly half of respondents (48%) feel the CRA’s requests for clarifications or supporting documentation when reviewing tax returns are fair, one third of respondents agree that the manner in which the CRA decides who to audit is fair (33%), and roughly a quarter agree the CRA does a good job explaining to Canadians how much money is collected through its audits (26%).

The CRA’s Information Line

Survey respondents who have used the CRA’s 1-800 information line were asked to rate several aspects of the service using a 5-point frequency scale (Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely or Never). A vast majority of these users (88%) say the agents on the phone are often or always respectful, provide accurate information (76%), and fully answer all their questions (75%). Caring about the tax situation with which the caller is dealing (56%), and the wait time on the line before getting through to an agent (36%) are areas that are not rated as high.

Additional analysis establishes a link between overall perceptions of fairness and the agents’ ability to provide accurate information, to empathize with the person calling and to a slightly lesser extent, to fully answer all the caller’s questions. The most important area worthy of consideration is having agents care about the tax situation with which the taxpayer is dealing since it is highly correlated with fairness and this is a dimension on which the CRA’s performance is relatively weaker.

The Tax Audit Experience

Survey respondents who were audited over the past year (9% of respondents) were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements regarding their most recent personal income tax audit experience with the CRA. Overall, half of audited respondents agree that the audit process was fair and a similar proportion agree that the audit outcome was fair. Regarding specific aspects of the audit experience, results suggest that auditors are moderately well rated when it comes to demeanor and knowledge whereas certain aspects of the actual audit process and certain communication-related dimensions are seen as falling short of expectations. More specifically:

• Roughly half believe the auditor had understood their position and a similar proportion believe that they were provided enough time and guidance to address the requirements of the audit.
• Fewer than half agree that the CRA or the auditor clearly explained the audit process, that the auditor clearly explained the results of the audit, and that the auditor cared about the tax situation with which they were dealing.

Methodology – Survey Phase

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA), and the Government of Canada Public Opinion Research Standards.

The survey consisted of a national telephone survey with Canadians, 18 years of age and older. The sample consisted of traditional wireline telephone numbers and a sub-quota of cell-phone only households.

Quorus designed the survey instrument in English and collaborated with the CRA to finalize the survey instrument. The CRA translated the English version of the survey. The approved final questionnaires were programmed for computer-based telephone data collection, and the survey was registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association’s (MRIA) National Survey Registration System.

Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in English or French and were informed of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts. Survey respondents were screened based on whether or not the individual was responsible for some or all of the household’s tax returns or dealings with the CRA.

The phone interview took on average 13 minutes to complete, and consisted of mostly closed-ended questions. Data collection occurred between March 13 and March 29, 2017, including a pretest of the questionnaire.

A total of 2,000 interviews were completed using a stratified random sampling approach. The response rate for the overall sample was 7.5%. The research findings can be extrapolated to the broader audience considering the margin of error associated with this sample size, +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20. The margins of error vary based on a variety of factors. For instance, results for sub-groups with smaller sample sizes will have a higher margin of error. As well, the margin of error is typically highest for questions where 50% of respondents answered one way and 50% answered another way. The margin of error typically decreases as the percent for a particular response approaches 0% or 100%.

Data was weighted by region, gender, age and urban/rural split to ensure that the final distributions within the final sample mirror those of the Canadian population according to the latest Census data.

Supplier Name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.

PWGSC Contract Number: 46558-174351/001/CY

Contract Award Date: January 9, 2017

Contract Amount (including HST): $149,673.02

For more information, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency at: media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Sommaire exécutif

But et objectifs de la recherche

Une composante importante du mandat de l’Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) est de s’assurer qu’elle traite tous les contribuables de manière équitable en vertu de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu. Le défi de l’ARC est qu’elle n’a pas une compréhension claire de la façon dont les contribuables canadiens définissent l’équité et qu’elle ne possède aucune mesure claire de la façon dont elle est perçue à cet égard. Par conséquent, l’ARC a déterminé qu’une étude de marché primaire était nécessaire pour obtenir de l’information précise au sujet de ce qui suit :

• Explorer le concept de l’équité en matière d’administration de l’impôt et ce que cela signifie pour les contribuables.
• Déterminer les facteurs qui influencent l’équité, ainsi que dans quelle mesure.
• Évaluer la perception actuelle des contribuables à l’égard de l’ARC en ce qui concerne l’équité.
• Évaluer le travail de l’Agence en ce qui concerne les cinq attributs particuliers Note de bas de page 2 suivants en mesurant les différentes interactions et les processus relatifs à la variable de l’équité :
  1. perceptions des résultats et des décisions prises;
  2. perceptions des processus et des procédures;
  3. perceptions de la façon dont le contribuable a été traité (avec courtoisie, dignité et respect);
  4. perceptions de l’exactitude, de la pertinence, de la facilité de compréhension et du caractère opportun de l’information;
  5. perceptions du caractère équitable des conséquences (pénalités, intérêts, etc.).

Les constatations découlant de la présente recherche serviront à l’élaboration d’une stratégie en vue d’atteindre les buts et les priorités établis dans le mandat de la ministre. Les résultats seront également utilisés dans le cadre d’une stratégie de communication et serviront de référence aux fins du suivi des mesures établies et de l’amélioration de celles-ci.

Résumé des constatations – Phase des groupes de discussion

Ce qui est important lors de l’utilisation d’un service offert par le gouvernement du Canada

On a demandé aux participants d’établir la liste de ce qui est important pour eux lorsqu’ils utilisent un service offert par le gouvernement du Canada. Cinq thèmes ont été générés et peuvent être résumés à l’aide de l’acronyme suivant : SPACE, qui signifie « simplicité, personne à personne, assurance de l’exactitude, compassion et efficacité ». Ces thèmes traduisent les priorités suivantes :

• La simplicité désigne la « facilité d’utilisation » pour ce qui est des ressources, comme les sites Web, de la compréhension des renseignements et des différents formulaires et documents à remplir.
• Les termes « personne à personne » désignent l’importance d’avoir la possibilité de parler à une personne, la facilité à recourir à cette option et la facilité à joindre la personne.
• L’assurance de l’exactitude met l’accent sur l’importance de fournir constamment des renseignements exacts et à jour.
• La compassion fait précisément référence aux représentants du service à la clientèle qui ont non seulement la « bonne attitude », mais qui font aussi preuve d’empathie envers l’appelant.
• L’efficacité vise principalement à s’assurer que les citoyens ne perdent pas leur temps, ce qui signifie des délais d’attente raisonnables lors de l’appel à un centre d’appels, la réduction au minimum des explications redondantes lors d’un transfert et un délai de traitement rapide des demandes de documentation ou de renseignements.

Ces thèmes et priorités sont généralement très uniformes parmi tous les types de participants, et les attentes sont les mêmes, peu importe le service utilisé ou le Ministère visé.

Note de l’ARC à l’égard de l’équité

On a demandé aux participants de noter l’ARC en ce qui concerne l’« équité » en fonction de leur propre interprétation du terme. Sur une échelle de 10 points, où 10 équivaut à la note la plus favorable, les participants ont attribué à l’Agence une note équivalant à peu près à 7 sur 10. Cet exercice a également aidé à faire la lumière sur des considérations d’ordre plus général concernant la note de l’ARC par rapport à cet attribut en particulier.

• Les participants ayant moins d’expérience relative à l’utilisation des services de l’ARC sont plus susceptibles d’attribuer une note favorable à l’Agence sur le plan de l’équité.
• Les perceptions sont façonnées par l’expérience personnelle des participants ainsi que l’expérience d’amis, de membres de la famille et de collègues dont ils ont entendu parler.
• Jusqu’à preuve du contraire, on présume que l’Agence agit de façon équitable.
• Certains participants sont très réticents à l’idée de donner une note élevée en ce qui concerne le rendement d’un ministère, d’une direction générale ou d’un service gouvernemental. Par exemple, pour certains participants, une note de 7 constitue une excellente note pour un organisme gouvernemental.
• Le contexte est important. Les taux d’imposition peuvent jouer un rôle, puisque certains participants ont indiqué que s’ils n’avaient pas été informés du fait que l’ARC ne détermine pas les taux d’imposition ou s’ils n’avaient pas eu un rappel à cet égard, ils auraient attribué une note moins élevée.

Même si cela n’est pas significatif sur le plan statistique, il convient de mentionner que les participants qui ont donné une très bonne note ou une mauvaise note en ce qui concerne l’équité ont également donné une note semblable à l’égard de la transparence, de l’exactitude et de l’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle.

Définition de l’équité

Les participants interprétaient généralement l’« équité » comme suit : Il s’agit de l’application égale des lois fiscales pour tous les contribuables, peu importe qui ils sont et où ils vivent. Même si l’accent était mis sur l’égalité entre les contribuables, certains ont ajouté que l’équité désignait également l’application de la loi avec une touche d’humanité, d’empathie et de souplesse.

Facteurs clés de l’équité

Lors de l’attribution de la note de l’ARC relativement à l’équité, les participants sont susceptibles de mettre l’accent sur des événements isolés, des incidents ou des interactions survenus avec l’ARC. Les exemples comprennent une vérification, une demande de renseignements ou une demande de documentation, ainsi que la révision d’une déclaration de revenus par l’ARC longtemps après l’émission d’un avis de cotisation. L’incident peut s’être produit une seule fois ou il y a plusieurs années, et peut même ne pas avoir été vécu par le participant. Plus souvent qu’autrement, la partie « non équitable » de ces interactions concerne les moments considérés comme injustifiés qui exigent beaucoup d’efforts ou de temps, ou lorsque la requête est inattendue.

Un autre facteur ayant contribué à l’attribution d’une note plus faible relative à l’équité est l’impression qu’il y a un déséquilibre en matière de pouvoir et de connaissances entre l’ARC et le contribuable. En fin de compte, ce déséquilibre en matière de pouvoir et de connaissances est considéré comme inéquitable. Voici les scénarios courants :

• Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation des lois fiscales, les participants estiment que c’est l’interprétation de l’ARC qui l’emportera.
• Les participants croient fermement que selon l’ARC, ils sont présumés coupables jusqu’à ce que leur innocence ait été démontrée, alors qu’ils estiment que cela devrait être le contraire.
• Certains croient que l’ARC impose de l’intérêt sur les montants qui lui sont dus, mais qu’elle ne paye pas d’intérêt aux contribuables dans la situation inverse, que le taux que les contribuables doivent payer à l’ARC est supérieur à celui que l’ARC doit payer, et que la date du déclencheur est différente.
• Les vérifications ont été ciblées par certains participants comme un point de discorde, même par ceux qui n’ont jamais eu de problème de ce genre.
  • De nombreux participants se demandaient comment l’ARC choisit les personnes visées par une vérification.
  • Si l’ARC consacrait plus de temps aux vérifications des grandes entreprises qu’à celles des Canadiens moyens, ses efforts lui permettraient d’obtenir un bien meilleur rendement.
  • Le niveau d’efforts que le contribuable doit consacrer lors d’une vérification est inéquitable, plus particulièrement si le processus de vérification s’étend sur plusieurs semaines ou mois.

  On a demandé aux participants ce qu’ils pensent de l’utilisation que fait l’ARC des sources de renseignements externes et publiques, comme les médias sociaux, y compris Facebook, pour contribuer aux activités de vérification et d’évaluation. Au début, plusieurs personnes semblaient inconfortables avec cette idée, mais le fait que les renseignements utilisés sont de nature « externe et publique » et qu’ils sont entièrement accessibles par tous ceux ayant une connexion Internet a apaisé de nombreuses préoccupations.

• L’ARC jouit d’une certaine réputation auprès de quelques participants. Même si les citoyens ont droit à une certaine latitude, les participants estiment qu’ils traitent avec la grande, inflexible et intimidante ARC.
• Un enjeu soulevé fréquemment est la complexité de la déclaration de revenus et la perception que les contribuables sont désavantagés sur le plan des connaissances en ce qui concerne les crédits d’impôt auxquels ils peuvent être admissibles.
• L’ARC est également perçue comme très proactive lorsqu’il s’agit de trouver des recettes fiscales au moyen de ses cotisations, mais qu’elle ne fait pas des pieds et des mains pour aviser les contribuables s’ils ont oublié de demander un crédit d’impôt.
• Le fait de devoir acheter un logiciel ou de faire affaire avec un comptable pour tirer le maximum de leurs déclarations de revenus est injuste selon certains participants.

Réactions relatives à la définition de « l’équité »

À la fin de chaque séance, on a présenté aux participants la définition de l’équité de l’ARC qui était en vigueur à ce moment-là. La plupart des participants étaient d’avis que la définition ne reflétait pas la réalité décrite lors de la séance, mais qu’ils aimeraient que l’ARC s’y conforme. Les termes « contribuables bien informés » semblent être une condition préalable au succès, ce sur quoi l’Agence devra le plus travailler et probablement l’un de ses plus grands défis à relever. Les trois piliers sur lesquels repose la confiance semblaient appropriés, même si certains ont laissé entendre qu’il devrait y avoir une certaine référence à la simplicité, notamment en ce qui concerne les processus.

Méthodologie – Phase des groupes de discussion

La méthodologie de recherche comprenait dix groupes de discussion traditionnels en installations professionnelles, et composés d’adultes canadiens de 18 ans et plus. Ces séances ont été menées à cinq endroits différents au pays : Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse), Brampton (Ontario), Saskatoon (Saskatchewan), Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique) et Montréal (Québec). Les séances dans chaque ville ont été réparties selon les critères suivants :

• Groupe 1 – Population générale;
• Groupe 2 – Contribuables ayant fait affaire avec l’ARC au cours des douze derniers mois (pour une raison autre que l’envoi de déclarations de revenus des particuliers ou des entreprises).

Le processus de recrutement visait également à assurer une bonne représentation d’hommes et de femmes, de différentes catégories de revenu des ménages et de différents groupes d’âge. Quorus a conçu un questionnaire de recrutement ainsi que le guide de modération de la présente étude, et l’ARC a traduit tous les documents de recherche.

Tous les groupes de discussion a duré deux heures et étaient dirigés par Rick Nadeau, l’un des chercheurs principaux bilingues de Quorus indiqués dans l’offre à commandes du gouvernement du Canada.

Avis de non-responsabilité pour la recherche qualitative

La recherche qualitative vise à obtenir un aperçu et une orientation plutôt que des mesures quantitatives pouvant être extrapolées. Le but n’est pas de générer des statistiques, mais bien de recueillir un éventail complet d’opinions sur un sujet donné, de comprendre le langage utilisé par les participants, d’évaluer leur degré de passion et d’engagement, et de tirer parti du pouvoir du groupe pour faire ressortir des idées. Les participants sont invités à exprimer leurs opinions, qu’elles soient partagées ou non par les autres.

En raison de la taille de l’échantillonnage, des méthodes de recrutement spéciales utilisées et des objectifs de la recherche, il est clairement entendu que les travaux faisant l’objet de la discussion sont de nature exploratoire. Les résultats ne peuvent ni ne doivent être extrapolés à une population plus vaste.

Il serait également inapproprié de suggérer ou d’insinuer que quelques utilisateurs réels (ou bon nombre d’entre eux) se comporteraient d’une certaine façon simplement parce que quelques participants (ou bon nombre d’entre eux) se sont comportés de cette façon durant les séances. Ce type de prévision relève strictement de la recherche quantitative.

Résumé des constatations – Phase du sondage

Évaluation globale

Le sondage a commencé par une évaluation globale de l’ARC. On a demandé aux répondants de noter le rendement de l’ARC en ce qui concerne l’administration de l’impôt et des prestations, sur une échelle de 0 à 10, où 0 signifie « médiocre » et 10, « excellent ». Près de la moitié des répondants (49 %) ont donné une note à l’ARC située entre 8 et 10, 44 % des répondants lui ont donné une note située entre 4 et 7 et 5 % des répondants lui ont donné une note de 3 ou moins.

On a ensuite demandé aux répondants de noter le rendement de l’ARC à l’égard de sept attributs précis. L’ARC semble se démarquer davantage sur le plan de l’exactitude, étant donné que 61 % des répondants lui ont donné une note située entre 8 et 10. Les notes les plus élevées ont ensuite diminué en ce qui concerne l’efficacité (49 %), l’équité (49 %), l’accessibilité (44 %), la facilité d’utilisation des services (44 %) et la transparence (43 %). L’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle est l’attribut qui a reçu les notes les plus faibles (les notes les plus élevées ayant été données par seulement 40 % des répondants).

• Les différences importantes parmi les groupes démographiques révèlent certaines tendances. Par exemple, les répondants âgés de moins de 50 ans sont généralement plus susceptibles de donner une note située entre 8 et 10 pour ces attributs, et la majorité des éléments risquent d’obtenir une meilleure note de la part des résidents du Québec, de l’Ontario et de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, de ceux qui parlent une langue non officielle à la maison et de ceux qui ont produit leurs déclarations de revenus par eux-mêmes ou avec l’aide d’un ami, d’un membre de la famille ou d’un bénévole. Dans l’ensemble, ceux qui sont moins susceptibles d’avoir une opinion positive de l’ARC sont les travailleurs autonomes et les ménages qui gagnent plus de 80 000 $ par année.

Une analyse plus approfondie de la façon dont les répondants ont attribué une note à l’ARC à l’égard de l’équité révèle des tendances qui sont très similaires à ce qui a été souligné lors de la phase des groupes de discussion de la présente étude de recherche. L’incidence de l’interaction avec l’ARC semble liée aux perceptions de l’équité, ou à l’inverse, moins une personne doit interagir avec l’ARC, plus sa perception de l’équité sera élevée. En outre, plus la situation fiscale d’un répondant est simple, plus son opinion de l’ARC sur le plan de l’équité sera bonne, et plus les répondants sont âgés, moins leur perception de l’équité est favorable.

Lorsqu’il s’agit de comprendre l’incidence de l’équité sur la façon dont l’ARC est perçue en général, une analyse de corrélation révèle qu’il y a forcément un lien entre l’efficacité de l’ARC et la façon dont elle est perçue en général. Ensuite, les perceptions de l’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle, de l’équité et de l’exactitude sont un autre ensemble d’attributs qui semblent très liés aux perceptions globales de l’ARC en tant qu’organisme d’administration de l’impôt.

Une analyse de corrélation plus approfondie révèle qu’il y a un lien entre les perceptions de l’équité et quatre autres attributs clés globaux. Le lien le plus fort semble être celui entre l’équité et la transparence, et viennent ensuite l’efficacité, l’exactitude et l’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle. L’amélioration de la satisfaction à l’égard des éléments importants de la transparence et de l’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle offrira les principaux gains de l’ARC sur la question de l’équité. L’exactitude et l’efficacité ne devraient pas être ignorées. Même si les notes relatives à la satisfaction à l’égard de ces deux attributs sont plus élevées, il y a encore des aspects à améliorer. Les efforts à l’égard de ces deux attributs permettront également d’améliorer la façon dont l’ARC est perçue sur le plan de l’équité.

Focus sur l’équité

L’ARC a été évaluée par rapport à une gamme complète d’attributs et d’activités particuliers liés à des mesures du rendement clés, comme l’équité, l’accessibilité, la transparence et l’orientation axée sur le service à la clientèle.

Préparation et production de déclarations de revenus, et établissement de cotisations

Près de la moitié des répondants de l’étude conviennent (notes situées entre 8 et 10) que le processus de collecte de renseignements à l’appui de leurs déclarations de revenus est simple (51 %) et que le niveau d’efforts ou les coûts liés à la préparation de leurs déclarations de revenus sont équitables (49 %). Les répondants étaient moins susceptibles de convenir que l’ARC informe de façon proactive les contribuables au sujet des crédits d’impôt et des avantages fiscaux auxquels ils ont droit (18 % des répondants ont donné une note située entre 0 et 3), que l’ARC travaille avec eux en vue de trouver des options de paiement lorsque le montant dû est difficile à gérer (35 % des répondants ont donné une note située entre 8 et 10), et que l’ARC ferait preuve de souplesse si des circonstances imprévues les empêchaient de produire leur déclaration de revenus ou d’effectuer un paiement dans les délais (34 %).

Un autre ensemble d’énoncés a été présenté aux répondants pour évaluer le rendement de l’ARC concernant l’établissement des cotisations. L’ARC a obtenu des notes élevées concernant la rapidité de l’envoi des remboursements (70 % des répondants lui ont attribué une note située entre 8 et 10) et de l’établissement des cotisations (65 %). Le rendement de l’ARC est modéré en ce qui concerne l’explication des résultats de la cotisation (53 %), mais il est plutôt faible en ce qui concerne l’imposition de pénalités et d’intérêts équitables (31 %). Il est important de noter que 13 % des répondants ont indiqué qu’ils ne savent pas si les pénalités et les intérêts sont équitables, parce qu’ils n’ont probablement jamais été tenus d’en payer.

Soutien et ressources à la disposition des Canadiens

Une bonne moitié des répondants au sondage (51 %) conviennent que l’ARC fournit du soutien et des ressources précis et exacts, mais ils s’entendent moins sur la question à savoir si le soutien et les ressources fournis sont faciles d’accès (39 %) et faciles à comprendre (38 %).

Efforts déployés par l’ARC pour s’assurer que les contribuables sont conformes

Les répondants ne semblent pas être d’avis que l’ARC utilise une approche équilibrée pour communiquer les omissions ou les erreurs survenues dans les déclarations de revenus. Si le contribuable a oublié quelque chose dans sa déclaration et qu’il doit plus d’argent que prévu, 72 % des répondants sont d’avis que l’ARC les aviserait de cet oubli. À l’inverse, si des crédits ont été oubliés par le contribuable, seulement 40 % des répondants sont convaincus que l’ARC les aviserait de cet oubli au moment de la révision de la déclaration de revenus.

Certaines améliorations semblent justifiées en ce qui concerne les aspects de la communication relative aux vérifications et aux demandes de renseignements et de documentation. Plus particulièrement, près de la moitié des répondants (48 %) estiment que les demandes de précisions ou de documents à l’appui de l’ARC lors de la révision des déclarations de revenus sont équitables, un tiers des répondants sont d’avis que la manière dont l’ARC détermine qui est visé par une vérification est juste (33 %), et près du quart des répondants conviennent que l’ARC fait un bon travail pour expliquer aux Canadiens les fonds recouvrés dans le cadre de ses vérifications (26 %).

Ligne d’information sans frais de l’ARC

On a demandé aux répondants à l’étude qui ont utilisé la ligne d’information sans frais de l’ARC de noter plusieurs aspects du service à l’aide d’une échelle de fréquence de cinq points (toujours, souvent, parfois, rarement ou jamais). La vaste majorité de ces utilisateurs (88 %) affirme que les agents au téléphone sont souvent ou toujours respectueux, qu’ils fournissent des renseignements exacts (76 %) et qu’ils répondent entièrement à toutes leurs questions (75 %). L’empathie à l’égard de la situation fiscale que doit gérer l’appelant (56 %) et le temps d’attente en ligne avant de pouvoir parler à un agent (36 %) n’ont pas obtenu une note aussi élevée.

Une analyse plus approfondie établit un lien entre les perceptions générales de l’équité et la capacité des agents à fournir des renseignements exacts, à faire preuve d’empathie envers l’appelant, et dans une moindre mesure, à répondre à toutes les questions de l’appelant. L’élément le plus important à prendre en considération est l’empathie des agents à l’égard de la situation fiscale que doit gérer le contribuable, puisque cet élément est grandement lié à l’équité, et le rendement de l’ARC à l’égard de cet attribut est relativement faible.

Expérience de la vérification fiscale

On a demandé aux répondants à l’étude ayant subi une vérification au cours de la dernière année (9 % des répondants) d’indiquer s’ils sont d’accord ou en désaccord avec un certain nombre d’énoncés au sujet de leur dernière expérience avec l’ARC en ce qui concerne la vérification de leur déclaration de revenus des particuliers. Dans l’ensemble, la moitié des répondants ayant subi une vérification est d’avis que le processus de vérification est équitable, et une proportion semblable convient que le résultat de la vérification était juste. En ce qui concerne les aspects particuliers de l’expérience de vérification, les résultats indiquent que les vérificateurs sont moyennement bien notés en ce qui concerne l’attitude et les connaissances, tandis que certains aspects du processus de vérification actuel et certains attributs relatifs à la communication ne répondent pas aux attentes. Plus précisément :

• Près de la moitié des répondants estiment que le vérificateur avait compris leur point de vue, et à peu près le même nombre de répondants croient qu’ils ont eu assez de temps et de conseils pour répondre aux exigences de la vérification.
• Moins de la moitié des répondants sont d’avis que l’ARC ou le vérificateur a expliqué clairement le processus de vérification et les résultats de cette dernière, et qu’il a fait preuve d’empathie à l’égard de la situation fiscale que les contribuables devaient gérer.

Méthodologie – Phase du sondage

Tous les travaux de recherche ont été menés conformément aux normes professionnelles établies par l’Association de la Recherche et de l’Intelligence Marketing et aux Normes pour la recherche sur l’opinion publique du gouvernement du Canada.

L’étude prenait la forme d’un sondage téléphonique à l’échelle nationale réalisé auprès de Canadiens de 18 ans ou plus. L’échantillon comprenait des numéros de téléphone filaire traditionnel et une sous-part de ménages utilisant uniquement un téléphone cellulaire.

Quorus a conçu l’instrument de sondage en anglais et a collaboré avec l’ARC pour l’achèvement de celui-ci. L’ARC a traduit la version anglaise du sondage. Les questionnaires finaux approuvés ont été programmés aux fins de la collecte informatisée de données téléphoniques, et le sondage a été enregistré dans le système national d’enregistrement des sondages de l’Association de la Recherche et de l’Intelligence Marketing.

Les répondants avaient le choix d’effectuer l’entrevue en français ou en anglais et ont été informés de leurs droits en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information. Pour être sélectionnés, les répondants à l’étude devaient correspondre à la personne de leur ménage qui est responsable, en tout ou en partie, de la production des déclarations de revenus du ménage ou des interactions avec l’ARC.

L’entrevue téléphonique durait environ 13 minutes et comprenait majoritairement des questions fermées. La collecte de données a été effectuée du 13 au 29 mars 2017 et comprenait un essai préliminaire du questionnaire.

Au total, 2 000 entrevues ont été menées selon une approche d’échantillonnage aléatoire stratifié. Le taux de réponse pour l’échantillonnage global était de 7,5 %. Les résultats de la recherche peuvent être extrapolés à un plus vaste public cible, compte tenu de la marge d’erreur liée à la taille de l’échantillon, soit environ 2,2 %, 19 fois sur 20. Les marges d’erreur varient en fonction de différents facteurs. Par exemple, la marge d’erreur des résultats relatifs aux sous-groupes dont l’échantillon est plus petit sera plus élevée. De plus, la marge d’erreur est généralement plus élevée pour les questions où 50 % des répondants ont répondu d’une façon et 50 % d’une autre façon. En général, plus le pourcentage pour une réponse en particulier s’approche de 0 % ou de 100 %, plus la marge d’erreur diminue.

Les données ont été pondérées par région, sexe, âge et zone urbaine ou rurale afin de veiller à ce que les répartitions définitives de l’échantillon final reflètent celles de la population canadienne selon les dernières données du Recensement.

Fournisseur : Le groupe conseil Quorus Inc.

Numéro du contrat : 46558-17-4351/001/CY

Date d’octroi du contrat : 9 janvier 2017

Valeur du contrat (TVH incluse) : 149 673,02 $

Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec l’Agence du Revenu du Canada à media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Detailed Results

Focus Group Research Findings

What is Important When Accessing a Government of Canada Service

Participants were asked to list what is important to them when accessing a Government of Canada service. The focus here is not so much what is lacking, but what is important to them. Necessarily though, some participants dwelled on the challenging or negative experiences they had with a Government of Canada service to highlight what is in fact important to them.

Five themes were generated and can be summarized with the following acronym - SPACE: Simplicity, Person to Person, Accuracy, Caring and Efficiency.

Simplicity

• ease of use of the resources providing information (especially website)
• ease of use of the information provided
• ease of use of forms / documents they need to fill out

Person to Person

• need a "human" option
• when they want to speak with someone, they should be easy to find and easy to reach

Accuracy

• getting up-to-date information
• getting the correct information
• competent agents who have access to the right information

Caring

• agent must have the right attitude
• want to speak with someone who "cares" - want to be left with the impression that they want to help

Efficiency

• keeping a call log of previous calls
• quick turnaround on what was requested
• reasonable wait times to access the service

These themes are very consistent across all types of participants although there were a few items that were especially important to certain segments. For instance, participants in Vancouver were especially concerned with having access to call center support at times of the day that are convenient for west coast residents. Although all participants want efficient websites, younger individuals tended to focus on websites a bit more than older ones. Some in the younger cohort explained that they will definitely exhaust all online options before trying to call. Some older participants explained that they don’t bother visiting Government of Canada websites and just opt automatically for a phone call.

Participants also indicated that their expectations are the same regardless of the service they are using or the Department with which they are dealing. Nearly all participants saw the list of service requirements as universally applicable.

Rating the CRA on Fairness

An important objective of this research was to better understand how Canadians define or interpret fairness in the context of the CRA. To get these insights, participants were asked to rate the CRA in terms of being “fair” based on their own personal interpretation of fairness. They were however reminded of the following before they rated the Agency:

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) administers tax laws for the Government of Canada and for most provinces and territories, and administers various social and economic benefit and incentive programs delivered through the tax system.

The CRA does not establish tax rates, create benefit and incentive programs or determine who can or cannot access those benefits and programs.

Using a 10-point scale, where 10 is the most favourable rating, participants tended to rate the Agency positively, with overall results showing most participants rating the Agency somewhere in the area of 7 out of 10. [NOTE: This finding is not intended to be statistically meaningful or representative – it was derived from focus groups and should be considered directional in nature.] Other than revealing what tends to drive perceptions of fairness, this exercise also helped shed light on broader considerations related to rating the CRA on this specific dimension.

• The less experience a participant has had dealing with the CRA or filing taxes in general and the fewer the number of “encounters” or interactions with the CRA the more likely they are to rate the Agency favourably in terms of fairness. Conversely, those who have had more interactions, and sometimes just one bad experience irrespective of how long ago, tend to score the Agency lower on fairness. The ability to provide a rating seemed to come much easier to older participants whereas for younger participants, some of whom only recently joined the workforce and almost exclusively rely on their parents to file their tax returns, rating the CRA on any dimension, including fairness, was a somewhat daunting task.
• Participants do not just look to their own personal experience with the CRA to generate their rating on fairness but they also base their impressions on what they see and hear around them through the experiences their friends, family members and co-workers have with the CRA. The media was also an influencing force for a few.
• Unless there is evidence to the contrary, there is an assumption that the Agency is fair.
• There is seemingly a rating ceiling for some participants who are very reluctant to give any Government department, branch or service a high performance score. For instance, for some participants, a score of 7 is considered an excellent score for a Government agency. The logic being that even if they have not experienced anything negative with a given Government agency, they cannot easily be convinced that a Government service can perform or deliver at a high level – that it is just not in the nature of Government to perform at that level.
• It was important to provide the short text clearly explaining what the CRA oversees and what it does not. Some participants indicated that if they had not been informed or reminded that the CRA does not determine tax rates, the fairness rating they gave would have been lower. Even with the pre-emptive explanation, a few participants still criticized the fairness of the amount of taxes they have to pay.

When participants were asked to rate the CRA on fairness, they were also asked to rate the Agency on six other dimensions: transparency, efficiency, easy to use, being client-service oriented, accessibility, and, accuracy. Although not statistically meaningful, it is worth noting that participants who gave high or low scores in terms of fairness, also tended to give equally high or low scores when it comes to transparency, accuracy and being client-service oriented. More statistically meaningful correlation analysis was undertaken using the survey data, the results of which tend to align with what was observed in the focus groups and support the notion that there is a relationship between these other dimensions and how taxpayers view the CRA on fairness. In fact, even without any prompting, focus group participants would occasionally point to these other dimensions and explain the connections they make between them and their assessment of fairness. These connections are touched on in the next section of this report.

Defining Fairness

Having rated the CRA on fairness, participants were then asked how they interpreted this concept. The most consistent interpretation was the following: It is the equal application of the tax laws across all taxpayers irrespective of who they are or where they live. The notion of “treating” all taxpayers the same also surfaced, which is slightly different than just consistently applying the law across taxpayers. The concept of taxpayer treatment captures dimensions such as support and accessibility in addition to application of the law.

While the focus was on equality across taxpayers, some added that fairness also meant applying the law with a touch of humanity, empathy and flexibility. Although this introduces elements of how taxpayers are “treated,” it also suggests that some participants would want the CRA to have exceptions and flexibility when it comes to treating all taxpayers or taxpayer situations the same.

Some participants did not just look at fairness across taxpayers, but also fairness between the taxpayer and the CRA. For instance, just because the CRA charges interest and penalties the same across all taxpayers, it does not mean that those rates and penalties are in fact fair.

Driving Fairness

Through the explanations provided for their ratings, participants were in effect describing what is “driving” their perception of fairness. The explanations tended to focus on the rating shortfall rather than on what was supporting the rating. For instance, if someone gave a rating of 7, they would tend to explain why the score was not a 9 or a 10 rather than explain what the CRA is doing well and actually deserving of a score of 7.

One of the first things we notice in the explanations behind the ratings is that participants are prone to focusing on isolated events, incidents or interactions that happened with the CRA. The incident may have happened only once, it may have happened a number of years ago and it may not have even happened to them. Nonetheless, the incident left a lasting impression on the participant and it is having an impact on how the CRA is perceived on being fair. Some of the examples mentioned during the groups include:

• A perceived “unjustified” investigation, where the participant needed to go through a lot to demonstrate the accuracy of their tax return.
• A situation where requests for information and documentation extended over a long period of time.
• A situation where a tax return was revisited by the CRA long after it had been submitted and long after the CRA had issued the notice of assessment. In these instances, participants were under the impression that there should be some sort of reasonable “statute of limitations” on how long after a return has been submitted and a notice of assessment received that the CRA can revisit or reopen an assessment. Many understood that they need to keep supporting documentation for a certain number of years but the fact that they receive a notice of assessment leaves them with the impression that the given return can be laid to rest, unbeknownst to them that the CRA still considers the file active.
• Getting audited, or getting audited again.

What tended to upset participants the most was not so much that the interaction occurred, but rather how it unfolded. Participants understand and appreciate that the CRA is perfectly justified in asking for supporting documentation and information and that auditing is part of this process. However, they do take issue with, and therefore consider unfair, the following:

• An investigation that seems unjustified;
• The amount of effort they need to put into resolving a CRA query;
• The amount of time it can take to resolve a CRA query;
• The unexpected nature of a query.

Another contributing factor to a weak or a weaker rating on fairness is a sense that there is an imbalance in power and knowledge between the CRA and the taxpayer. Participants provided a variety of examples of situations that, when boiled down to the essence of the issue, would suggest that the CRA is favored or has the upper hand while the participant feels that they are at a disadvantage. Ultimately, this imbalance in power and knowledge is seen as unfair.

Some of the more common or more frustrating scenarios presented by participants included the following:

• In the event of a disagreement, especially when it comes to the interpretation of tax laws, participants feel the odds of success seem unfairly tilted in the Agency’s favour. They feel that it is the CRA’s interpretation of the law that will carry the day.
• If the CRA questions a claimed credit or suspects an error by the taxpayer, participants strongly believe that they are presumed guilty until proven innocent, when they feel it should be the other way around.
• Another commonly raised example of a perceived imbalance in power is the approach taken by the CRA when it comes to charging interests. Some believe that the CRA charges interest on money owed to them but do not pay interest to the taxpayer when the situation is reversed. Similarly, a few were under the impression that the rate they pay the CRA is higher than the rate the CRA pays back or that the trigger date is different – the taxpayer starts paying interests at an earlier point in time post-assessment compared to the CRA. While participants were often inaccurate or misinformed on this matter, the perceptions nonetheless exist.
• Audits were raised as a point of contention for some participants, even those who have never been through one before. On this matter, participants seemed to feel that three particular aspects left them with the impression that the CRA could be fairer in its approach:
  • Many wondered how the CRA chooses who they audit. In nearly every session, someone proposed that if the selection was completely random, they would be much more likely to accept the “fairness” of the approach. Few suggested that specific types of individuals should be targeted and even if the moderator proposed that there are in fact high risk cases, many participants had some trouble accepting this as a logical explanation for why they or someone they know got audited.
  • This conversation invariably led to participants suggesting that if the CRA spent as much time auditing large corporations as they do auditing average Canadians, they would see a much larger return on their efforts.
  • To add to the stress and the frustration of having been selected for an audit, participants explained that the level of effort that the taxpayer is expected to invest is unfair, especially if the audit process stretches over many weeks and months.

  Participants were asked what they thought about the CRA using external and public sources of information such as social media, including Facebook, to feed into audit assessment activities. At first, many did not seem comfortable with this idea. This left them with a “big brother” feeling. They did not like having the CRA scouring their personal information without their express consent. The moderator often needed to remind participants that the information being used is not what is password-protected but rather what is “external and public” and fully accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. This small clarification was vital and this often appeased many concerns. As well, giving an example of how social media could be used by the Agency helped contextualize the relevance of the exercise. Participants are even more reassured about the practice if they are explained that social media information would be one among many different sources of information that CRA would use to trigger an audit of a given individual.

• CRA has a certain reputation with some participants. Even if the citizen is entitled to some latitude, participants feel they are dealing with the large, unbending and intimidating CRA and that if they owe them anything (e.g. money, information, documentation, a tax return, etc.), they better do so as soon as possible. When they were told the CRA does provide latitude in various circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control, many were not aware and, further, this did very little to improve the perception of the Agency. In fact, it would have made the Agency appear worse if they did not provide this sort of leniency.
• An issue that was often raised is the complexity of the tax return and the perception that taxpayers are at a knowledge disadvantage when it comes to tax credits to which they may be entitled. For some, everything related to the CRA is “complicated” – the tax form, the website, the language, etc.
  This particular disadvantage compelled a few participants to suggest that everything related to the CRA needs to be simplified and that more taxpayer education and communication is needed to help bridge this knowledge gap. Suggestions here included producing a “Did you know?” type of mass-media advertising around the time of year when Canadians are preparing their tax returns, and having open-door days in local government offices or public libraries for Q&A sessions with someone from the CRA.

There was particular concern with the following segments:

• Low income Canadians who cannot afford software or a tax expert, and who might not have the education to figure out how to successfully fill out their tax return and maximize their credits;
• Newcomers, not only because of possible language barriers but also because they would be encountering the Canadian tax system for the first time; and,
• Students – similar to newcomers, they are seeing the Canadian tax system for the first time. Some suggested youth need to learn about taxes in school before they get their first part-time job or at least before they graduate and are ready to enter the workforce full-time.
• There is also a perception that the CRA is very pro-active when it comes to finding tax revenue through their assessments but that they do not go out of their way to let taxpayers know if they missed out on a tax credit.
• Having to buy software or hire an accountant to maximize their tax return is seen by some as unfair – they do not feel they should be obliged to spend money in order to get their tax return successfully completed and to maximize their tax credits. In fact, many of the factors listed above are the main reasons that explain the use of software or an expert in the preparation of tax returns, in particular:
  1. A complicated return and language,
  2. A concern for the consequences of making a mistake, and,
  3. A concern for missing out on a possible tax credit.

Throughout the sessions, various other forms of inequity surfaced but few of these tended to be at the heart of why participants rated the CRA strongly or poorly on this dimension:

• The ongoing push towards having all things online was generally seen as a positive trend, but the sentiment was not unanimous. A few viewed the increased dependence on the Internet as a double-edged sword.
  • On the one hand, access to more resources, tools and features online is seen by some as the democratization of information. For instance, those who use My Account value its ease of use and the extent to which they can access their own information. Some actually felt that many of the online features and functionalities increase “fairness” because the average citizen now has more control over their affairs with the CRA. For a few participants, this has been a positive evolution for the CRA and one of the main reasons their fairness score would be higher today compared to a few years ago.
  • On the other hand, some were quick to point out that not everyone has Internet access and not everyone is computer or Internet-literate. It was deemed unfair for these individuals to have to contend more and more with a virtual world to get their taxes done or to access support and information.
• Individuals in many sessions stressed the importance of being able to reach someone at the CRA by telephone. As noted earlier, there are still individuals who will use the telephone as their default support solution and they value being able to ask someone specific questions about what they consider to be a specific situation. On this matter, participants identified two key dimensions that they believe the CRA needs to prioritize in order to become fairer:
  • Accessibility – have better hours of operation (especially for western Canada residents), have shorter wait times before someone answers (especially around tax time) and finally, actually have someone answer the call.
  • Competence and Efficiency – participants are frustrated with having to explain to each new agent why they are calling in situations where they get transferred. They believe a more efficient case logging or call logging system would save them time and reduce frustrations. There were also a few participants who felt that they got a different answer to their question each time they called the CRA, which again was seen as a waste of their time.

  In the end, participants feel that it is unfair that they need to spend so much of their own time to get through to an agent, and that even when they do get through, time is wasted trying to get the answer to their questions. A few even suggested that if the forms and the information on the website were easy to find and to understand, they would not have to call in the first place.

• A few felt that there is some element of inequity if essential resources, forms and tools are not available in languages other than in English and French.

Reactions to the Working Definition

At the end of each session, participants were presented with what was, at the time, the CRA’s working definition of fairness.

Fairness in tax administration is achieved when well-informed taxpayers trust that they have paid their fair share as required by the law – nothing more, nothing less – and they trust that all other taxpayers have done the same.

This trust is informed by:

Most participants would agree that this is not today’s CRA or today’s broader reality for taxpayers but nearly all participants believe that this is certainly a commendable aspirational position for the Agency to take. It is not what they see today but they would like the CRA to be this way.

Participants focused on specific parts of the text, with the reference to “well-informed taxpayers” attracting the most attention. This is seen as the pre-condition for success on which the Agency will need to work on the most and is perhaps the greatest challenge to overcome. A few participants struggled with the use of the term “trust” since they don’t believe that all taxpayers can be brought to trust the Government or the CRA specifically, no matter what steps they decide to take to become fairer.

The three pillars on which trust will be informed seemed appropriate to nearly all participants. Some suggested that there should be a reference to simplicity, probably with respect to processes. Otherwise participants were comfortable with what was proposed.

Survey Research Findings

This section of the report is dedicated to the research results derived from the national survey of Canadian households. At the beginning of the survey, respondents were told that, throughout the survey, we would refer to the Canada Revenue Agency as the CRA. They were also read the following:

Please remember as well that the CRA administers tax laws and various benefit and incentive programs delivered through the tax system. However, they do not determine how much your tax rate is. [IF NEEDED: They apply the tax rules to each taxpayer as they are written, they collect taxes, and deliver benefits.]

[IF ASKED: We are referring to your personal [in Quebec – “Federal”] income taxes, not your [all but QC] GST-HST, corporate, or payroll tax accounts.]

Overall Assessment

The survey started with an overall assessment of the CRA. Survey participants were asked to rate the CRA’s performance in terms of the administration of taxes and benefits using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 meant “terrible” and 10 meant “excellent”. Nearly half of respondents (49%) rated the CRA from 8 to 10, 44% rated it from 4 to 7, and 5% gave it a score of 3 or less.

Question 1. Overall, how would you rate the performance of the CRA when it comes to the administration of your taxes and benefits? Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you would rate their performance as being terrible and 10 means they are excellent. Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

CRA's Overall Performance Rating

• 8 to 10: 49%
• 4 to 7: 44%
• 0 to 3: 5%
• Don’t know/Refuse to say: 2%

Some demographic groups are more likely to rate the CRA in a positive way overall (score of 8 to 10). More noticeable differences are observed in terms of the province or territory of residence, and the language spoken at home, as follows:

• respondents who speak a non-official language at home (61% vs. 47% of those who speak only English, and 51% of those who speak only French);
• ratings are higher among Ontario, Newfoundland and Quebec residents (54%, 54%, and 52% respectively), compared to those in Manitoba / Nunavut (37%), Saskatchewan (39%), and Alberta / Northwest Territories (41%);
• those with an annual household income under $40,000 (55% vs. 49% of those with a higher income);
• those who prepared their 2015 income tax return on their own compared to those whose tax return was prepared by an accountant or a tax preparation company (53% vs. 46%); and
• respondents 35 to 49 years old (53%), compared to those 50 to 64 (45%).

In addition, respondents who have not “interacted” with the CRA over the past year are more likely to provide an “excellent” rating of the CRA’s overall performance compared to those who have “interacted” with the CRA (18% vs. 13%). Someone who “interacted” with the CRA in this context refers to someone who, over the past year, looked for general information, looked for clarification of information sent to them by the CRA, made a payment owing on their taxes, tried to resolve a dispute with the CRA, looked for information about their taxes, went through a formal audit, or was contacted by the CRA for clarification or supporting documentation regarding their tax return.

It is worth noting that the method used to submit a tax return (electronic or online vs. paper) does not seem to have an impact on the assessment of the CRA’s performance.

Respondents were then asked to rate the CRA’s performance on specific dimensions, including transparency, efficiency, fairness, accessibility, accuracy, client-service oriented as well as the ease of use of their services. Respondents were asked to provide a rating using the same 0 to 10 scale that was used to assess the CRA’s overall performance.

The CRA seems to be performing the best when it comes to being accurate, with 61% of respondents providing a top-three score (8-10). Top scores then drop for all remaining dimensions, although there are still between 40% and 49% of respondents who assigned the highest scores. As seen in the graphic below, we can see that in relation to the other metrics considered in this study, the CRA fares well in terms of being efficient and fair. Positive ratings then slip some more when it comes to being accessible, having services that are easy to use and being transparent. Being client-service oriented was the dimension that received the lowest performance scores. Roughly one in ten respondents believe the CRA deserves the lowest scores (0 to 3) for all dimensions except when it comes to being accurate where only 5% offered such a low rating.

Question 2. And now, how would you rate the CRA on the following dimensions using the same scale from 0 to 10? Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

Significant differences across demographic groups reveal a number of trends, many of which are consistent with the sub-group results that surfaced when considering how the CRA was rated overall. For instance, respondents under 50 years old are consistently more likely to assign scores from 8 to 10, and most elements are more likely to be rated positively by residents in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland, by those who speak a non-official language at home, and those who prepared their tax return on their own or with a friend, family member, or volunteer assistance. Overall, those less likely to assign a positive score from 8 to 10 are self-employed, those with a household income over $80,000, and PEI residents. Details are as follows:

• Respondents who are self-employed are less likely to rate the CRA highly in terms of accuracy (49% vs. 63%), efficiency (39% vs. 51%), accessibility (37% vs. 47%) and having services that are easy to use (32% vs. 44%).
• Survey participants with a household income under $40,000 are more likely to rate the CRA highly, compared to those with higher incomes, when it comes to being efficient (59% vs. 48%), transparent (52% vs. 41%), and client-service oriented (50% vs. 39%).
• Those who speak a non-official language at home are more likely to rate the CRA highly on all dimensions except accuracy – more specifically, they scored the CRA highest in terms of being efficient (70%), fair (65%), having services that are easy to use (59%), being transparent (64%) and being client-service oriented (60%), compared to those who only speak one of the two official languages at home.

Additional analysis allows us to compare the profile of respondents based on how they rated the CRA in terms of overall fairness. The next table provides the profile for the three main rating categories: those who rated the CRA “low” in terms of fairness (a score of 0 to 3), those who provided a “neutral” rating (a score of 4 to 7) and those who rated it “high” (a score of 8 to 10). The percentages in this table are column percentages. Shaded cells and bolded numbers indicate statistically significant differences between segments. The exercise reveals trends that are very consistent with what surfaced in the focus group phase of this research study. These include:

• There appears to be a relationship between the incidence of interaction with the CRA and perceptions of fairness. Indeed, the less a segment needs to interact with the CRA, the higher the perception that the CRA is fair. Those who gave the lowest ratings on fairness were the most likely to have been audited, to have contacted the CRA to solve a dispute, to have visited a Service Canada office, and to have contacted the CRA to pay a balance owing on their taxes.
• The simpler a respondent’s tax situation, the fairer they view the CRA. As the table below shows, the segment of respondents who rated the CRA the highest in terms of fairness were more likely to consist of individuals who are unemployed or full-time students, aged between 18 and 34 years old, and in the low-income group (earning under $20,000 per year). They are also more likely to have done their own taxes and to be using My Account. We can also presume that the simpler a taxpayer’s situation, the less likely they are to have to contact the CRA in the first place so this finding may be in some ways related to the first point above.
• Perceptions of fairness grow weaker with age (with a leveling off happening after 65 years of age) – which is also likely related to the two points above since a typical taxpayer’s situation grows more complex with age and older taxpayers are also more likely to have interacted with the CRA at some point in time. Even though the survey focuses on interactions over the past year, our focus group research revealed that taxpayers will continue to consider an interaction with the CRA when rating them on fairness even if it is not recent.

This additional analysis reveals a noteworthy sub-group trend that, when compared to results from the focus groups, would suggest a contradiction of sorts. In the focus groups, some participants were concerned that the CRA could be fairer with certain segments of the population including newcomers, students and low-income households. Their main concern in the focus groups was that these segments of the population may not have the same means or knowledge as other Canadians to effectively complete their tax returns. Results from the survey that are derived directly from these types of respondents would suggest that they are in fact more likely to be satisfied with CRA’s fairness than their counterparts. We could hypothesize that focus group participants were altruistic in their sentiments on the issue of fairness and felt that other groups in the community could benefit from greater fairness from the CRA than themselves. Perhaps these discordant findings imply that the specific segments “don’t know what they don’t know” and that a taxpayer only discovers how much more fair the CRA could have been as their household income increases or as they become more experienced with the tax system. Finally, it could also be that the CRA is in fact genuinely fair with these specific groups in the community.

When it comes to understanding which dimensions play a role in terms of how the CRA is perceived overall, correlation analysis reveals that being efficient is most likely to be correlated with how the CRA is seen overall. Then perceptions of being client-service oriented, being fair and being accurate are the next set of dimensions that appear to be most closely correlated with overall perceptions of the CRA as a tax administrator. These results suggest that fairness is an important overall driver of how taxpayers view the CRA overall and that efforts to maintain or improve aspects related to fairness will have a positive impact on how the CRA is seen as performing overall.

These results also show that being accessible and having services that are easy to use rank the lowest but these dimensions should not be overlooked. There is still a relationship between these dimensions and how taxpayers view the CRA overall, even if that relationship is not as strong compared to being efficient.

Correlations Between Dimensions and Overall Perception of CRA as a Tax Administrator

• Being efficient 0.71
• Being client-service oriented 0.69
• Being fair 0.69
• Being accurate 0.66
• Being transparent 0.64
• Having services that are easy to use 0.63
• Being accessible 0.58

The intersection of satisfaction with derived importance (as measured by looking at correlation coefficients) is mapped in the graph below. Dimensions with a high importance and low levels of satisfaction should be considered priorities. As seen earlier, the CRA is perceived as performing relatively well on three of the first four dimensions. When it comes to being client-service oriented, results would suggest that improvements in this area are warranted and if they materialize, they are likely to increase overall perceptions of the CRA.

Further correlation analysis reveals that there is a relationship between perceptions of fairness and four other key overall dimensions. The strongest relationship appears to be with transparency – the more respondents see the CRA as transparent, the more they will also see the CRA as being fair (and vice versa). There is also a strong relationship between perceptions of fairness and a sense that the CRA is efficient, accurate and client-service oriented. The relationship then weakens when it comes to linking fairness with having services that are easy to use and being accessible although the relationships are not necessarily negligible, they are just relatively weaker compared to the other dimensions considered.

This graphic depicts the intersection of satisfaction ratings with derived importance measured by looking at correlation coefficients between seven dimensions evaluating CRA and its perception as a tax administrator.

As seen in the second graph below, improving satisfaction on the important elements of transparency and being client-service oriented are where the CRA stands to see the biggest gains in terms of being considered fair. They cannot ignore accuracy and efficiency however – while satisfaction scores on these two dimensions are stronger, there is still room for improvement. Efforts in these two areas will also lead to improvements in how the CRA is seen in terms of fairness.

Correlations Between Dimensions and Perceptions of CRA Being Fair

• Being transparent 0.73
• Being efficient 0.71
• Being accurate 0.70
• Being client-service oriented 0.70
• Having services that are easy to use 0.62
• Being accessible 0.58

This graphic depicts the intersection of satisfaction ratings with derived importance measured by looking at correlation coefficients between six dimensions evaluating CRA and the perception of it being fair.

Fairness Drilldown

The CRA was assessed along a full range of specific dimensions and activities related to key performance metrics such as fairness, accessibility, transparency, and being customer-service oriented.

Preparing and filing taxes, and assessing tax returns

A first set of dimensions were related to the process of preparing and filing taxes, as well as the CRA’s performance assessing tax returns. Survey respondents were asked to use a scale from 0 to 10 to rate their agreement with different statements, where 0 meant strong disagreement and 10 meant strong agreement.

The dimensions under this theme that received the most favourable ratings were related to the effort, process or cost involved in preparing a tax return. Roughly half of survey participants agree (rating of 8 to 10) that the process of gathering the information to support their return is simple (51%), and that the level of effort or cost to prepare their return is fair (49%).

Respondents were less likely to agree that the CRA proactively communicates to them the tax credits and benefits to which they are entitled. On this specific dimension, nearly one in five (18%) gave the lowest ratings (0 to 3). Respondents were also less likely to agree that the CRA works with them to find payment options when the amount owed is difficult to manage (35% gave a score of 8 to 10), and only 34% of respondents are very confident that the CRA would be flexible if unforeseen circumstances affected their ability to file or pay on time. It is worth noting that while only 35% agree the CRA would work with them to find payment options, roughly one in five respondents (19%) indicated they do not know or refused to indicate their agreement level with this statement, possibly because they have not been in a situation where they cannot manage the amount owed.

Question 3A. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to preparing and filing your taxes? Base: All respondents, n=2000.

Similar demographic trends are observed for this first set of statements as what was observed earlier in terms of key performance dimensions. Notably, respondents 50 to 64 are the least likely to agree with the statements, along with self-employed, university-educated respondents, those with a household income of at least $100,000, Anglophone or bilingual respondents, and those who had their tax return prepared by a company. Respondents in Alberta are particularly more likely to disagree (scores 0 to 3) that the CRA would be flexible if taxpayers found themselves unable to file or pay on time, compared to other provinces (32% vs. 21%).

Results for a few of these statements vary depending on who prepared the tax return. Respondents who prepared their tax return on their own or with assistance from a friend, family member or volunteer are more likely to agree the level of effort or cost was fair, compared to those who hired an accountant or a tax preparation company for this purpose (55% vs. 43%). As well, the process of gathering the information was perceived as simple by those who used assistance from friends, family or volunteers, compared to those using an accountant or a tax preparation company (56% vs. 48%).

Conversely, respondents who didn’t prepare their tax return on their own are more likely to agree the CRA proactively communicates to them the tax credits and benefits to which they are entitled.

Opinions also vary across a few subgroups regarding whether or not the CRA would work with them to find reasonable payment options when the amount owed is difficult to manage. Respondents who prepared their taxes with assistance from friends, family or volunteers (42%) and those who filed their tax return on paper (43%) are more likely to agree the CRA would work with them compared to lower levels of agreement among those who prepared it on their own (33%) or with a tax preparation company (34%), or who filed their return electronically (34%).

Another set of statements was presented to respondents to evaluate the CRA’s performance assessing tax returns. The CRA gets high marks for their timeliness in sending refunds (70% assigned a score of 8 to 10) and assessing tax returns (65%). They perform moderately well when it comes to explaining the results of the tax return assessment (53%), but are not seen as performing well in terms of charging fair penalties and interest (31%). It is important to note that 13% indicated they did not know if the penalties and interest are fair, likely because they have not had to pay them.

Question 3A. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to preparing and filing your taxes? Base: All respondents, n=2000.

Similar to other ratings, respondents who are 50 to 64, those who are self-employed, those with high household incomes, and Anglophone or bilingual respondents are less likely to agree with these statements.

CRA’s timeliness appears to be better appreciated by university-educated respondents (75% agree the CRA sends refunds back in a timely fashion, and 69% agree returns are assessed quickly) compared to those with less education (67% agree refunds are sent back in a timely fashion and 63% agree returns are assessed quickly respectively). Similarly, those who prepared their tax return on their own or with assistance are more likely to appreciate the timeliness (74% and 69%), than those who hired a tax preparation company or an accountant (67% and 61%).

Support and Resources Available to Canadians

Fully half of survey participants (51%) agree the CRA provides support and resources that are accurate, while nearly two fifths agree the support and resources provided are easy to access (39%), and easy to understand (38%).

Question 3B. Now to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to the support and resources the CRA makes available to Canadians when they have a question regarding their tax return or their assessment? Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

Respondents who are more likely to agree with these statements include those under 35 years old, those with high school as their highest education level, those who are unemployed, those with a household income under $40,000, residents of Ontario, Manitoba / Nunavut and Nova Scotia, those who speak a non-official language at home, those living in urban areas, and those who prepared their tax return on their own or with unpaid assistance.

Quebec residents are considerably more likely to agree that the support and resources are easy to understand (46%) compared to respondents in the rest of the country (35%). This, along with the fact that Anglophones are the least likely to agree with this statement (32% vs. 48% among those who primarily speak any other language) may suggest the need for a review of what is offered in each official language.

Efforts the CRA Makes to Ensure Taxpayers Are Compliant

Respondents do not seem to feel that the CRA is balanced in its approach to communicating oversights or errors in tax returns. If the taxpayer overlooked something in their return and owed more money than expected to the CRA, 72% agree the CRA would bring this to their attention. Conversely, if credits are overlooked by the taxpayer, only 40% are confident that the CRA would bring that to their attention when they review their return. Fully 19% gave the CRA the lowest ratings on this front.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) feel the CRA’s requests for clarifications or supporting documentation when reviewing tax returns are fair.

Respondents are critical of the CRA when it comes to a few aspects related to its audit practice. More specifically, only one third of respondents agree that the manner in which the CRA decides who to audit is fair (33%), although 15% did not provide an opinion. In addition, only roughly a quarter agree the CRA does a good job explaining to Canadians how much money is collected through its audits (26%) while nearly the same proportion (22%) disagree.

Question 3C. Now to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to efforts the CRA makes to ensure tax payers are compliant? Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

Respondents agreeing that the CRA would bring to their attention that they owe more money are more likely to be at least 35 years old (74% vs. 67%), employed or unemployed versus self-employed (73% vs. 58%), and to speak only English at home (74% vs. 66% of those who speak only French at home).

Again, demographic trends highlighted earlier are observed with this series of statements. Respondents the least likely to agree with these statements are likely to be between 50 and 64 years old, university-educated, employed or self-employed, in higher household income brackets, speaking only English at home, and have prepared their tax return on their own or using an accountant or tax preparation company.

Respondents who have not used CRA resources Footnote 3 over the past year are more likely than users to agree that the CRA would bring to their attention overlooked credits (43% vs. 38%). Non-users are also more likely to agree that the CRA is fair in who it decides to audit (38% vs. 30%), and that the CRA does a good job explaining to Canadians how much money is collected through the CRA’s audits (33% vs. 23%).

From a geographic perspective, respondents in Alberta are the most likely to disagree that the CRA does a good job explaining to Canadians how much money is collected through the CRA’s audits, compared to those in the rest of the country (36% vs. 20%).

The CRA’s Information Line

Survey participants were asked to rate several aspects of the CRA’s 1-800 information line, if they had used it, using a 5-point frequency scale (Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely or Never). A vast majority of these users (88%) say the agents on the phone are often or always respectful, while roughly three quarters indicate agents provide accurate information (76%), and fully answer all their questions (75%). Over half indicate agents often or always care about the tax situation with which the caller is dealing (56%), and roughly one third (36%) indicate the wait time on the line before getting through to an agent is often or always acceptable.

Question 7. When you deal with someone from the CRA over the phone, how often would you say…? Base: Respondents who have called the CRA, n=1,434.

Nova Scotia and Quebec residents are more likely to indicate the agents fully answered their questions (84% and 81%) compared to residents of Ontario (72%), Saskatchewan (67%), and Manitoba / Nunavut (65%). Saskatchewan residents are more likely to indicate agents care about the tax situation with which the caller is dealing (70%), compared to those in Newfoundland (52%), Ontario (55%), and British Columbia / Yukon (50%). Similarly, Quebec residents are more likely to indicate the wait time on the line before getting through to an agent is acceptable (44%), compared to residents of Newfoundland (30%), Ontario (36%), and British Columbia / Yukon (28%).

In addition, respondents who speak only French at home are more likely than those who speak only English at home to say agents are often or always respectful (92% vs. 87%), providing accurate information (82% vs. 74%), answering all questions (80% vs. 72%), and that the wait time on the line to get to an agent is acceptable (42% vs. 33%).

Additional analysis shows that certain information line dimensions are more closely linked to perceptions of overall fairness than others. Again, while we cannot assume causality, we can still conclude that there is a connection. As the figure below reveals, overall perceptions of fairness are especially linked to the agents’ ability to provide accurate information, to their ability to empathize with the person calling and to a slightly lesser extent, to their ability to fully answer all the caller’s questions. Investments in these areas will likely lead to improvements in terms of perceptions of fairness – the most important area worthy of consideration is having agents care about the tax situation with which the taxpayer is dealing since it is highly correlated with fairness and this is a dimension on which the CRA’s performance is relatively weaker.

Correlations Between 1-800 Service Attributes and Perceptions of CRA Being Fair

• The wait time on the line before getting through to an agent is acceptable. 0.241
• The agents are respectful. 0.297
• The agents fully answer all your questions. 0.37
• The agents care about the tax situation with which you are dealing 0.421
• The agents provide you with accurate information. 0.426

The Tax Audit Experience

Survey respondents who were audited over the past year were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements regarding their most recent personal income tax audit experience with the CRA, using a scale from 0 to 10.

Half of audited respondents (50%) agree that the audit process was fair. Men are more likely than women to agree with this statement (60% vs. 40%), as are respondents in urban areas compared to those in rural areas (51% vs. 29%).

The evaluation of specific elements related to the audit shows that auditors are best rated for their demeanour, professionalism and knowledge. More specifically, roughly two thirds of audited respondents agree the auditor was respectful (67%), and professional (62%). Nearly 6 in 10 audited respondents agree the auditor was knowledgeable (58%).

Question 8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your most recent personal income tax audit experience with the CRA, again using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly disagree and 10 means you strongly agree? Base: Respondents who were audited in the past year, n=159.

Performance scores slip somewhat when it comes to specific aspects of the audit process and communications. For instance, only 53% agree the outcome of the audit was fair. Another 53% believe that in the end, the auditor had understood their position and 52% believe that they were provided with enough time and guidance to address the requirements of the audit. Fewer than half agree that the CRA or the auditor clearly explained the audit process (47%), that the auditor clearly explained the results of the audit (47%), and that the auditor cared about the tax situation with which they were dealing (44%).

Respondents who speak only French at home are more likely than those who speak only English at home to agree their auditor was knowledgeable (69% vs. 49%), that they were provided with enough time and guidance to address the requirements of the audit (62% vs. 39%), and that the auditor clearly explained the results of the audit (60% vs. 31%).

In addition, those who prepared their tax return with non-paid assistance are more likely than those who prepared it on their own to agree the auditor was respectful (91% vs. 68%), professional (91% vs. 63%), knowledgeable (82% vs. 54%), that the outcome of the audit was fair (70% vs. 41%), that at the end of the audit, they felt the auditor had understood their position (76% vs. 48%), that they were provided with enough time and guidance to address the requirements of the audit (72% vs. 51%), and that the auditor cared about the tax situation with which they were dealing (63% vs. 42%). For many of these same attributes, ratings among those who prepared their tax return with non-paid assistance are also significantly higher compared to those who had their return prepared by a company.

Respondent Profile

Reason(s) for Interaction with CRA

Nearly half of survey respondents (46%) have interacted with the CRA to look for general information. In addition, 41% looked for information about filing their taxes. Nearly a third (32%) contacted the CRA to look for clarification of information sent to them by the CRA, or because they needed to make a payment owing on their taxes.

Less than one fifth of respondents (16%) were contacted by the CRA for clarification or supporting documentation needed while assessing a tax return outside of an audit, 14% tried to resolve a dispute they had with the CRA, 9% went through a formal audit, and 1% were contacted by the CRA because of their status as a self-employed businessperson and received assistance through the CRA’s Liaison Officer Initiative. Just over a quarter (27%) did not interact with the CRA in any of these forms.

Question 5. Over the past year, have you had any of the following interactions with the CRA? Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

Interactions with CRA

• You looked for general information 46%
• You looked for information about filing your taxes 41%
• You looked for clarification of information sent to you by the CRA 32%
• You needed to make a payment owing on your taxes 32%
• You were contacted by the CRA for clarification or supporting documentation they needed while assessing your return, outside of an audit 16%
• You tried to resolve a dispute you had with the CRA 14%
• You went through a formal audit, rather than the CRA contacting you to obtain a clarification or supporting documentation 9%
• The CRA contacted you, as a self-employed businessperson, and provided you with assistance through its Liaison Officer Initiative 1%
• None of the above 27%

While women are more likely to have contacted the CRA to look for general information (51% vs. 40%), men are more likely to have contacted the CRA to try to resolve a dispute (27% vs. 12%).

Respondents under 65 years old are more likely to have contacted the CRA for general information and to look for information about filing their taxes, compared to older respondents. Respondents with at least college or CEGEP education are more likely to have had most of the interactions with the CRA listed above, compared to those with high school education at the most.

Residents of Ontario and other provinces and territories to the West of Ontario are more likely to have looked for information about filing their taxes, compared to Quebec residents and other provinces to the East of Quebec. Quebec residents were the most likely to indicate they have contacted the CRA to make a payment owing on their taxes, or that they went through a formal audit. Those in Newfoundland are more likely to say they have not contacted the CRA in any of these ways.

Channels Used to Interact with the CRA

Over the past year, 58% of respondents accessed the CRA website, 39% used “My Account” and 32% called the CRA’s 1-800 Information Line. Very few visited a Service Canada office to discuss their personal taxes (7%) and only 3% used the CRA mobile application. Overall, 69% of respondents used at least one of these services whereas 31% did not use any over the past year.

Question 6. Over the past year, have you used or accessed any of the following: Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

• The CRA website 58%
• The CRA's My Account 39%
• The CRA's 1-800 information line 32%
• You visited a Service Canada office to discuss your personal taxes 7%
• The CRA mobile app 3%
• None of the above 31%

The profiles of those more likely to access the CRA website and its secure portal “My Account” are similar, given both are online resources. Overall, these are accessed by younger respondents, university educated, employed, with higher household incomes, living in urban areas, and who have prepared their tax return on their own and filed electronically. More specifically:

• Respondents under 65 years old are more likely to have accessed the CRA website (64%) and the CRA’s My Account (43%), compared to those 65 and older (34% and 23% respectively);
• Respondents with university education are more likely to have accessed these two channels (75% CRA website, 53% CRA’s My Account), compared to those with College/CEGEP level (56% and 38% respectively) or high school (34% and 21% respectively);
• Those employed are more likely to have accessed these two channels (66% and 47%), compared to self-employed (54% and 34%), or unemployed respondents (47% and 30%);
• Respondents with a household income of at least $80,000 are more likely to have accessed the CRA website (73%) and the CRA’s My Account (53%) compared to those with a household income under $80,000 (49% and 32%);
• Residents of Alberta / Northwest Territories are more likely to have accessed both the CRA website (70%) and CRA’s My Account (50%), compared to the rest of Canada (56% and 38% respectively);
• Those who live in urban areas are more likely to have accessed these two services (CRA’s website - 60%, CRA’s My Account - 41%) compared to those living in rural areas (50% and 32% respectively), and
• Respondents who prepared their income tax on their own (CRA’s website - 80%, CRA’s My Account - 61%), compared to those who prepared it with paid or unpaid assistance (49% and 31%); and,
• Respondents who filed their income tax electronically (CRA’s website - 59%, CRA’s My Account - 41%), compared to those who filed it on paper (50% and 25% respectively).

Respondents who accessed the CRA’s 1-800 information line are more likely to be women compared to men (35% vs. 29%); have at least college/CEGEP education (37%) compared to those with less education (20%); have a household income of at least $80,000 (37% vs. 29% of less income); speak only English at home (35%) and/or a non-official language (32%) compared to those who only speak French (21%); and have prepared their income tax return on their own, compared to those who paid to have it prepared (37% vs. 31%).

Those who visited a Service Canada office are more likely to have at most a college/CEGEP education (9% vs. 4% for those with university studies); have a household income of less than $80,000 (9% vs. 4% of those with household income over $80,000); speak both official languages at home (15%) and/or a non-official language (13%) compared to those who speak only French at home (4%); have prepared their income tax with paid or unpaid assistance (8%) compared to those who prepared it on their own (4%); and have filed this income tax on paper (14%) compared to those who filed it electronically (6%).

Respondents with college/CEGEP education are more likely to have accessed the CRA mobile app (5%) compared to those with less education (2%). Additionally, residents of Alberta and the Northwest Territories are more likely to have used the CRA mobile app compared to the rest of Canada (8% vs. 3%); as well as those who speak a non-official language at home compared to those who speak only English at home (7% vs. 2%); and those who filed their income tax return electronically compared to those who filed it on paper (3% vs. 1%).

Respondents who did not access any of these channels are more likely to be at least 50 years old (40% vs. 23%); have less than university-level education (41% vs. 18%); be unemployed (41% vs. 26% employed); have a household income under $80,000 (38% vs. 19% of those with a higher household income); be Quebec residents (40% vs. 29% of rest of Canada); speak only French at home (43% vs. 28% who speak only English at home and/or a non-official language); and have filed their income tax with paid or unpaid assistance (38% vs. 14%).

How the 2015 Income Tax Return was Prepared

In terms of how respondents prepared their income tax return, over half (53%) indicate having prepared their 2015 tax return with the help of an accountant or a tax preparation company such as H&R Block. Over a quarter (29%) prepared it on their own, and nearly one fifth prepared it with the help of a family member or friend (14%), or a volunteer through the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (3%).

Question 9. Which of the following best represents how your 2015 income tax return was prepared? Base: All respondents, n=2,000.

• It was prepared by an accountant or a tax preparation company such as H&R Block 53%
• You prepared it on your own 29%
• You prepared it with the assistance of a family member or a friend 14%
• It was prepared by a volunteer through the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program 3%
• I did not submit an income tax return last year 1%
• Can't remember / Refuse 1%

Respondents under 35 years old are more likely to have prepared their return with the help of a family member or friend (17%) or a volunteer (5%), compared to those 50 to 64 (10% and 1% respectively). The more educated respondents are, the more likely they are to prepare their tax return on their own (high school – 19%, college – 27%, and university – 38%).

British Columbia residents are the most likely to prepare their tax return on their own (40%), those in Newfoundland are more likely to prepare it with the assistance of a family member or a friend (23%), and those in Quebec are more likely to have it prepared by an accountant or a tax preparation company (61%).

Those who speak only English at home are more likely to prepare their income tax on their own (34%) as well as those in urban centres (31%).

How the 2015 Income Tax Return was Submitted

The majority of respondents (90%) who submitted their income tax return did so electronically or over the Internet using Netfile, and the remaining 10% submitted a paper return. Those submitting their return electronically are more likely to be under 65 years old, with at least college education, working or self-employed, and residents of Alberta / Northwest Territories.

Question 10. How was your income tax return submitted last year? Was it filed on paper, or was it filed electronically over the Internet? Base: All respondents excluding those who didn’t file last year or couldn’t remember how they prepared/filed, n=1,978.

• Electronically/ over the Internet (Netfile) 90%
• On paper 10%

Demographic Profile

The distribution of respondents across a variety of other demographic and CRA-related profiling variables is presented in the grid below.

Background and Methodology

Background and Research Objectives

An important component to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) mandate is to ensure that they treat all taxpayers fairly under the Income Tax Act. The challenge for CRA is that they do not have a clear understanding of how Canadian taxpayers define fairness and they do not have a clear measure of how they are perceived on this metric. Therefore, CRA has identified a need for primary market research to gain specific insights into the following:

• Explore the concept of fairness in tax administration and what it means to taxpayers;
• Determine which factors influence fairness and to what extent;
• Assess taxpayers’ current perception of CRA on fairness;
• Assess the Agency’s work on the following five specific dimensions Footnote 4 by measuring different interactions and processes on the fairness variable:
  1. Perceptions of outcome and decisions made;
  2. Perceptions of processes and procedures;
  3. Perceptions of how the taxpayer was treated (with courtesy, dignity, respect);
  4. Perceptions of accuracy, relevance, ease of understanding and timeliness of information;
  5. Perceptions of fairness of consequences (i.e., penalties, interests).

The findings from this research will feed into a strategy developed to realize the goals and priorities set forth in the Minister’s mandate. The results will also be leveraged into a communication strategy and will serve as a benchmark upon which to track the established measures and improve upon them.

Methodology

Overview: The research methodology consisted of two phases of research: first a series of 10 focus groups with Canadians in five different locations, followed by a national telephone survey with 2,000 Canadian households.

Focus Group Phase

Quorus designed a recruitment screener and the moderation guide for this study and CRA translated all the research materials.

The target population for the focus groups consisted of adult Canadians at least 18 years old. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone from the general public. In the design of the recruitment screener, specific questions were inserted to clearly identify whether participants qualified for the research program and to ensure a good representation and mix across genders, household income categories, and age groups. Furthermore, the sessions in each city were split based on the following criteria:

• Group 1 – General population
• Group 2 – Canadian taxpayers who have interacted with the CRA within the past twelve months (other than for sending in personal or business tax returns).

Quorus recruited 10 participants in order to have 8-10 individuals per group. All participants received a $75.00 honorarium at the end of the discussion. Furthermore:

• All recruitment was conducted in the participant’s official language of choice, English or French, as appropriate.
• Upon request, participants were informed on how they can access the research findings.
• Upon request, participants were provided Quorus’ privacy policy.
• Recruitment confirmed each participant’s ability to speak, understand, read and write in the language in which the session was to be conducted.
• Participants were informed of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensured that those rights would be protected throughout the research process. This includes: informing them of the purpose of the research; identifying both the sponsoring department or agency and research supplier; informing participants that the study will be made available to the public 6 months after field completion through Library and Archives Canada and informing them that their participation in the study is voluntary and the information provided will be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.

At the recruitment stage and at the beginning of each focus group, participants were informed that the research was for the Government of Canada/CRA. Participants were also informed of audio/video taping of the focus group sessions, in addition to the presence of CRA observers. Quorus ensured that prior consent was obtained at the recruitment stage and before participants entered the focus group room.

All focus groups were held in a professional focus group facility that allowed the client team to observe the sessions. In all locations, audio-video recording capabilities were in place.

A total of 75 individuals participated in these focus groups. The locations and dates of the sessions are presented in the grid below:

All focus groups were 2 hours long and moderated by Rick Nadeau, one of Quorus’ bilingual senior researchers on the Government of Canada Standing Offer.

Qualitative Research Disclaimer

Qualitative research seeks to develop insight and direction rather than quantitatively projectable measures. The purpose is not to generate “statistics” but to hear the full range of opinions on a topic, understand the language participants use, gauge degrees of passion and engagement and to leverage the power of the group to inspire ideas. Participants are encouraged to voice their opinions, irrespective of whether or not that view is shared by others.

Due to the sample size, the special recruitment methods used, and the study objectives themselves, it is clearly understood that the work under discussion is exploratory in nature. The findings are not, nor were they intended to be, projectable to a larger population.

Specifically, it is inappropriate to suggest or to infer that few (or many) real world users would behave in one way simply because few (or many) participants behaved in this way during the sessions. This kind of projection is strictly the prerogative of quantitative research.

Survey Phase

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA), and the Government of Canada Public Opinion Research Standards, as follows:

• The survey consisted of a national telephone survey with Canadians, 18 years of age and older. The sample consisted of traditional wireline telephone numbers and a sub-quota of cell-phone only households. Cell phone numbers were added to the landline Random Digital Dialing telephone sample to reduce coverage error and provide a more representative final sample.
• Quorus designed the survey instrument in English and worked with the client team to ensure the research objectives were addressed, that plain language was used, and that the questionnaire flowed easily for respondents. Quorus collaborated with the CRA to finalize the survey instrument. CRA translated the client-approved English version of the survey. Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in English or French.
• Quorus informed respondents of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensured that those rights were protected throughout the research process. This included: informing participants of the purpose of the research; identifying both the sponsoring department or agency and research supplier; informing participants that the study will be made available to the public in 6 months after field completion through Library and Archives Canada and informing participants that their participation in the study was voluntary and the information provided would be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.
• The survey introduction was adjusted to appropriately capture the reality of calling Canadians on their cell phones (e.g. making sure they are not driving, providing an option to call them back on a landline if they prefer, etc.)
• Survey respondents were screened based on whether or not the individual was responsible for some or all of the household’s tax returns or dealings with the CRA.
• The survey instrument took on average 13 minutes to complete, and consisted of mostly closed-ended questions.
• The approved final questionnaires were programmed for computer-based telephone data collection, and the survey was registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association’s (MRIA) National Survey Registration System.
• A total of 2,000 interviews were completed through a national telephone survey with Canadian households, using a stratified random sampling approach. The sample strata enabled maximum analysis potential by region, age group and gender.
• Data collection occurred between March 13 and March 29, 2017, and included a pretest of 11 surveys with English respondents and 10 with French respondents. The pretest helped assess the flow of the survey, comprehension of the questions, language, data integrity, and particularly the length of the survey instrument. Given a longer than expected survey instrument, adjustments to the questionnaire were made to shorten it and the scope of the project budget was also adjusted to accommodate a 13-minute survey.
• For this study, quotas by province were established to generate sufficient data regionally for robust analysis. Data was monitored to ensure a 50/50 gender split in each province, and that no specific age cohort was under-represented. A total of 2,000 interviews were completed using a stratified random sampling approach. The response rate for the overall sample was 7.5%. The research findings can be extrapolated to the broader audience considering the margin of error associated with this sample size, +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20. The margins of error vary based on a variety of factors. For instance, results for sub-groups with smaller sample sizes will have a higher margin of error. As well, the margin of error is typically highest for questions where 50% of respondents answered one way and 50% answered another way. The margin of error typically decreases as the percent for a particular response approaches 0% or 100%.

PROVINCE	SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION	MARGIN OF ERROR
Newfoundland and Labrador	100	+/- 9.8%
Prince Edward Island	100	+/- 9.8%
New Brunswick	100	+/- 9.8%
Nova Scotia	100	+/- 9.8%
Quebec	425	+/- 4.7%
Ontario	600	+/- 4.0%
Manitoba/Nunavut	100	+/- 9.8%
Saskatchewan	100	+/- 9.8%
Alberta/NWT	175	+/- 7.4%
British Columbia/Yukon	200	+/- 6.9%
TOTAL	2,000	+/- 2.2%

• Data was weighted by region, gender, age and urban/rural split to ensure that the final distributions within the final sample mirror those of the Canadian population according to the latest Census data.
• Note: Tables in the report may have shaded cells and bolded numbers, indicating statistically significant differences between segments. Similarly, sample sizes from a population are indicated with the statistical notation “n” for probability-based random samples.

DIALING DETAILS	TOTAL	RDD	CELL
Total Numbers Attempted	65947	21460	44487
Out-of-scope - Invalid	37890	6366	31524
Unresolved (U)	11219	5132	6087
No answer/Answering machine	11219	5132	6087
In-scope - Non-responding (IS)	3708	1816	1892
Language barrier	432	230	202
Incapable of completing (ill/deceased)	187	151	36
Callback (Respondent not available)	3089	1435	1654
Total Asked	13130	8146	4984
Refusal	10813	6663	4150
Termination	218	159	59
In-scope - Responding units (R)	2099	1324	775
Completed Interview	2000	1263	737
NQ - Quota Full	0	0	0
NQ - No one responsible for tax preparation	99	61	38
Refusal Rate	84.01%	83.75%	84.45%
Response Rate	7.48%	8.77%	5.98%
Incidence	95.28%	95.39%	95.10%
LENGTH (in minutes and seconds)	13 mins, 20 secs	13 mins, 15 secs	13 mins, 30 secs

Appendices

Appendix A – Focus Group Recruitment Screener /Questionnaire de recrutement

Recruitment Screener

Government of Canada Winter 2017

Questionnaire #______________Date of Last Group_____________# of previous groups___________

NOTE: All times are stated in local area time

Halifax, NS

Monday, February 6, 2017

Group 1: Gen Pop - English @ 5:30 pm $75

Group 2: Interacted with CRA - English @ 7:30 pm $75

Brampton, Ontario

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Group 3: Gen Pop - English @ 5:30 pm $75

Group 4: Interacted with CRA - English @ 7:30 pm $75

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Group 5: Gen Pop - English @ 5:30 pm $75

Group 6: Interacted with CRA - English @ 7:30 pm $75

Vancouver, BC*

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Group 7: Gen Pop - English @ 5:30 pm $75

Group 8: Interacted with CRA - English @ 7:30 pm $75

Montreal, Quebec

Monday, February 13, 2017

Group 9: Gen Pop - French @ 5:30 pm $75

Group 10: Interacted with CRA - French @ 7:30 pm $75

Recruit: 10 for 8 to show per group

*For the groups in Vancouver:

Recruit 4 to 5 participants from the city of Vancouver, the rest should be from vicinity areas such as Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, North Vancouver, etc.

*For the groups in Montreal:

Recruit 4 to 5 participants from the city of Montreal, the rest should be from vicinity areas such as Laval, Longueuil, Terrebonne, Repentigny, Brossard, Saint-Jérôme, Blainville, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, or Châteauguay

Respondent's name:

Respondent's phone #: (home)

Respondent's phone #: (work)

Respondent's fax #: sent? Or Respondent's e-mail: sent?

Sample source (circle): panel random client referral

Interviewer:

Date:

Validated:

Quality Central:

On List:

On Quotas:

Hello/Bonjour, my name is . I'm calling from Nielsen Opinion Quest and Quorus Consulting Group, a national public opinion research firm. On behalf of the Government of Canada we're organizing a series of discussion groups with Canadians to explore current issues of importance to the country. A variety of topics will be discussed and we are interested in hearing your opinions.

EXPLAIN FOCUS GROUPS. About ten people like you will be taking part, all of them randomly recruited just like you, on DATE in CITY. For their time, participants will receive an honorarium of $75.00. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. This should take no more than 5 minutes. May I ask you a few questions?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No ASK IF ANYONE ELSE IN HOUSEHOLD MIGHT BE INTERESTED

Participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing your opinions, no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a "round table" discussion lead by a research professional. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified. Results will be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF ASKED ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS, SAY: "The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation." Quorus' privacy policy can be made available on request via regular mail at 1937 Portobello Blvd. PO Box 17053, Ottawa, ON K4A 4W8, or by e-mail at eva@quorusconsulting.com].

READ TO ALL: "This call may be monitored or audio taped for quality control and evaluation purposes."

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED:

• to ensure that I (the interviewer) am reading the questions correctly and collecting your answers accurately;
• to assess my (the interviewer) work for performance evaluation;
• to ensure that the questionnaire is accurate/correct (i.e. evaluation of CATI programming and methodology – we're asking the right questions to meet our clients' research requirements – kind of like pre-testing).
• If the call is audio taped, it is only for the purposes of playback to the interviewer for a performance evaluation immediately after the interview is conducted or it can be used by the Project Manager/client to evaluate the questionnaire if they were unavailable at the time of the interview – all audio tapes are destroyed after the evaluation.

S1) Do you or any member of your household currently work or has worked in the last five years, in the following industries:

IF "YES, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS" TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE

S2) Are you a Canadian citizen at least 18 years old who normally resides in the [XX] area?

• Yes 1 CONTINUE
• No 2 THANK AND TERMINATE

S3) Have you ever attended a consumer group discussion, an interview or survey which was arranged in advance and for which you received a sum of money?

• Yes 1 MAX. ⅓ PER GROUP
• No 2 GO TO Q1

S4) How long ago was it?

TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS

S5) How many consumer discussion groups have you attended in the past 5 years?

TERMINATE IF MORE THAN 4 DISCUSSION GROUPS

ASK ALL

Q1) Could you please tell me what age category you fall into? Are you...( FROM 1 TO 6, ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP, MAXIMUM OF 2 THAT ARE 65+)

• Under 18 0 THANK AND TERMINATE
• 18-24 years 1
• 25-34 years 2
• 35-44 years 3
• 45-54 years 4
• 55-64 years 5
• 65+ years 6
• Refuse 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

Q2) Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you have completed? (FROM 1 TO 4, ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP)

• Some high school 1
• Completed high school 2
• Some College/University 3
• Completed College/University 4
• RF/DK 9

Q3) What is your current employment status? (FROM 5 TO 9, MAX 3 PER GROUP)

• Working full-time 1
• Working part-time 2
• Self-employed 3
• Retired 4
• Currently not working 5
• Student 6
• Other 7
• DK/RF 9

Q4) [IF EMPLOYED/RETIRED] What is/was your current/past occupation? __________________________ (PLEASE SPECIFY– IF PARTICIPANT WAS OR IS AT ALL INVOLVED IN PERSONAL TAX RETURN PREPARATION, TAX EXPERT, ACCOUNTANT OR RELATED INDUSTRY, FLAG FOR SUPERVISOR)

Q5) Within the past 12 months have you personally contacted the Government of Canada to:

• Apply for or renew a passport 1
• Apply for employment insurance or any other benefit like CPP or Old Age Security 2
• Interacted with the Canada Revenue Agency for a reason other than to just file a personal or business tax return [DO NOT READ: EXAMPLES ARE: SEEKING GENERAL INFORMATION, SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON INFO SENT TO THEM BY THE CRA, SEEEKING INFO ON FILING TAXES, TRYING TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE WITH THE CRA, CHANGING INFORMATION ON THEIR FILE, OR MAKING A PAYMENT OWED ON TAXES] 3
• Apply for the Canada Child Benefit 4

IF RESPONDENT INTERACTED WITH CRA (#3 above), THEY QUALIFY FOR Groups 2,4,6,8,10, OTHERWISE THEY QUALIFY FOR GROUPS 1,3,5,7,9

Q6) Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes [READ LIST]?(ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP)

• Under $20,000 1
• 20,000 to just under $ 40,000 2
• $40,000 to just under $ 60,000 3
• $60,000 to just under $ 80,000 4
• $80,000 to just under $100,000 5
• $100,000 to just under $150,000 6
• $150,000 and above 7
• DK/RF 99 THANK AND TERMINATE

Q7) Do you consider yourself to be a member of a visible ethno-cultural group?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No GO TO Q9

Q8) What is your ethnic background? RECORD:

Ethnicity: ______________

In each city, recruit at least two per group who are of non-European descent or who are other visible minorities (i.e. Chinese or South Asian, but could include aboriginal people or Afro-Canadians as well).

Q9) DO NOT ASK - NOTE GENDER (ENSURE 50-50 SPLIT)

• Male 1
• Female 2

Q10) If you won a million dollars, what would be the first two things you would do with the money? (MUST HAVE TWO RESPONSES TO ACCEPT. TERMINATE IF FLIPPANT, COMBATIVE OR EXHIBITS DIFFICULTY IN RESPONDING)

TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY OR IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN.

Invitation

As I mentioned earlier, the group discussion will take place the evening of, DATE @ TIME for 2 hours and participants will receive $75.00 for their time. Would you be willing to attend?

• Yes 1 CONTINUE
• No 2 THANK AND TERMINATE

PRIVACY QUESTIONS

Thank you for agreeing to take part in our sessions. We will be providing your name to the facility so that they can sign you in and check your ID when you arrive. The groups will be audio and /or videotaped and may be observed but your participation will be confidential. Please note these materials will not be used for any other purpose and will be destroyed once the project is fully completed. Also once the groups are completed your name will be submitted to the MRIA's (Marketing Research and Intelligence Association) Qualitative Central system as a focus group participant, you will not be contacted for any reason for being on this list.

P1) Do you agree with this?

• Yes 1 GO TO INVITE
• No 2 ASK FOLLOW UP SO THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN AND ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE RECRUIT. IF STILL A REFUSAL, LOG THE CALL APPROPRIATELY

P1a) Can you please tell me which item is causing you concern?

IF POSSIBLE TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERN IF NOT THANK AND TERMINATE

• Provided name to facility 1 NQP1
• Audio taping 2 NQP2
• Video taping 3 NQP3
• MRIA list 4 NQP4

AS REQUIRED, ADDITIONAL INFO FOR THE INTERVIEWER:

Please be assured that this information is kept confidential and is strictly accessed and used by professional market research firm to review participation and prevent "professional respondents" from attending sessions. Research firms participating in MRIA's Qualitative Central require your consent to be eligible to participate in the focus group - the system helps ensure the integrity of the research process.

The session will be video recorded for research purposes and representatives of the Government of Canada research team may be observing from an adjoining room. You will be asked to sign a waiver to acknowledge that you will be video recorded during the session. The recordings will be used only by the Quorus Consulting research team and will not be shared with others. As I mentioned, all information collected in the group discussion will remain anonymous and be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.

AS REQUIRED, NOTE ABOUT MRIA:

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association is a non-profit organization for marketing research professionals engaged in marketing, advertising, social, and political research. The Society's mission is to be the leader in promoting excellence in the practice of marketing and social research and in the value of market information.

Invitation:

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at:

Halifax, NS
CRA (Corporate Research Associates)
7071 Bayers Road Suite 5001
Halifax, NS B3L 2C2

Montreal, QC
Nielsen Opinion Quest
1080 Côte du Beaver Hall, 4th floor
Montreal, QC H2Z 1S8

Brampton, ON
Contract Testing Inc.
119 West Drive
Brampton, ON L6T 2J6

Saskatoon, SK
Insightrix
1-3223 Millar Avenue
Saskatoon, SK S7K 5Y3

Vancouver, BC
Consumer Research Centre
1398 West 7th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6H 3W5

We ask that you arrive fifteen minutes early to be sure you find parking, locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. The hosts may be checking respondents’ identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring some personal identification with you (for example, a driver’s license). Please be advised that you cannot send any replacement on your behalf. If you require glasses for reading make sure you bring them with you as well.

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend or if you have any questions, please call us so that we may get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [NAME]. Someone will also call you the day before to remind you about the discussion.

So that we can call you to remind you about the focus group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [READ INFO AND CHANGE AS NECESSARY.]

First name
Last Name
Email
Day time phone number
Night time phone number

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number, please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. If they still refuse, THANK & TERMINATE.

Thank you very much for your help!

Questionnaire de recrutement

Gouvernement du Canada, hiver 2017

Nº de questionnaire ______________Date du dernier groupe _____________Nombre de groupes précédents ___________

REMARQUE : Toutes les heures indiquées sont les heures locales.

Halifax, Nouvelle-Écosse

Lundi 6 février 2017

Groupe 1 : population générale, en anglais 17 h 30 75 $

Groupe 2 : interactions avec l’ARC, en anglais 19 h 30 75 $

Brampton, Ontario

Mardi 7 février 2017

Groupe 3 : population générale, en anglais 17 h 30 75 $

Groupe 4 : interactions avec l’ARC, en anglais 19 h 30 75 $

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Mercredi 8 février 2017

Groupe 5 : population générale, en anglais 17 h 30 75 $

Groupe 6 : interactions avec l’ARC, en anglais 19 h 30 75 $

Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique

Jeudi 9 février 2017

Groupe 7 : population générale, en anglais 17 h 30 75 $

Groupe 8 : interactions avec l’ARC, en anglais 19 h 30 75 $

Montréal, Québec

Lundi 13 février 2017

Groupe 9 : population générale, en français 17 h 30 75 $

Groupe 10 : interactions avec l’ARC, en français 19 h 30 75 $

Recruter 10 participants pour en avoir 8 qui se présentent

*Pour les groupes à Vancouver :

Recruter 4 ou 5 participants de la ville de Vancouver et les autres, des alentours, dont Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, North Vancouver, etc.

*Pour les groupes à Montréal :

Recruter 4 ou 5 participants de la ville de Montréal et les autres, des alentours, dont Laval, Longueuil, Terrebonne, Repentigny, Brossard, Saint-Jérôme, Blainville, Dollard-des-Ormeaux ou Châteauguay.

Nom du répondant :

Numéro de téléphone du répondant : _________________(domicile)

Numéro de téléphone du répondant : _________________(travail)

Numéro de télécopieur du répondant : __________envoyé? ___ou Courriel du répondant : ________________________________envoyé?

Source de l’échantillon (encercler) : groupe consultatif aléatoire client référence

Intervieweur :

Date :

Validé :

Centrale de qualité :

Sur la liste :

Dans les quotas :

Bonjour/Hello. Je m’appelle et je téléphone de Nielsen Opinion Quest et du groupe-conseil Quorus, une firme nationale de sondage d’opinion publique. Au nom du gouvernement du Canada, nous organisons une série de discussions de groupes avec des Canadiens pour discuter de sujets d’actualité importants pour l’ensemble du pays. Plusieurs thèmes seront abordés et nous souhaitons recueillir vos opinions.

EXPLIQUER CE QUE SONT LES GROUPES DE DISCUSSION. Environ dix (10) personnes comme vous, sélectionnées au hasard, participeront aux séances le DATE à VILLE. Pour sa participation, chaque personne recevra un montant de 75 $. Avant de vous inviter, nous devons vous poser quelques questions pour nous assurer de recruter une variété de participants de manière à former des groupes bien assortis. Cela devrait prendre 5 minutes tout au plus. Puis-je vous poser quelques questions?

• Oui CONTINUER
• Non DEMANDER SI UN AUTRE MEMBRE DU MÉNAGE SERAIT INTÉRESSÉ

Votre participation est entièrement volontaire. Nous aimerions connaître votre opinion. Personne n’essaiera de vous vendre quoi que ce soit ni de vous amener à changer votre point de vue. Les discussions prendront la forme d’une « table ronde » dirigée par un professionnel de la recherche. Toutes les opinions exprimées demeureront anonymes et les commentaires seront regroupés de manière à ce que personne ne puisse être identifié. Les résultats serviront uniquement aux fins de la recherche, conformément aux lois en matière de protection de la vie privée.

[NOTE POUR L’INTERVIEWEUR : SI L’INTERLOCUTEUR POSE DES QUESTIONS AU SUJET DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE, DITES-LUI CE QUI SUIT : Les renseignements recueillis dans le cadre de la recherche sont assujettis aux dispositions de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, des autres lois du gouvernement du Canada et des lois provinciales applicables en matière de protection de la vie privée. La politique de confidentialité de Quorus est disponible sur demande à l’adresse suivante : 1937, boulevard Portobello, C.P. 17053, Ottawa (Ontario) K4A 4W8, ou par courriel à eva@quorusconsulting.com].

DIRE À TOUS : Cet appel pourrait être écouté ou enregistré à des fins de contrôle de la qualité et d’évaluation.

AUTRES PRÉCISIONS, AU BESOIN :

• Pour s’assurer que je (l’intervieweur) vous lis les questions correctement et que je note vos réponses avec précision;
• Pour évaluer mon travail (l’intervieweur) aux fins de l’évaluation de rendement;
• Pour s’assurer que le questionnaire est exact (p. ex., l’évaluation de la programmation et de la méthodologie ITAO – que nous posons les bonnes questions afin de répondre aux exigences de notre client en matière de recherche – comme pour un essai préliminaire).
• Si l’appel est enregistré, ce sera uniquement pour le faire entendre à l’intervieweur lors de l’évaluation de rendement immédiatement après l’entrevue ou pour permettre au chargé de projet ou au client d’évaluer le questionnaire s’ils n’ont pas pu le faire au moment de l’entrevue. Tous les enregistrements seront détruits une fois l’évaluation terminée.

S1) Au cours des cinq (5) dernières années, avez-vous travaillé ou un membre de votre ménage a-t-il travaillé dans l’un ou l’autre des secteurs suivants :

SI A RÉPONDU OUI DANS LES 5 DERNIÈRES ANNÉES À L’UN OU L’AUTRE DES CHOIX DE RÉPONSES CI-DESSUS, REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN.

S2) Êtes-vous un citoyen canadien âgé d’au moins 18 ans qui réside habituellement dans la région de [XX] ?

• Oui 1 CONTINUER
• Non 2 REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN

S3) Avez-vous déjà participé à une discussion de groupe avec des consommateurs, à une entrevue ou à un sondage organisé pour lequel vous avez reçu une somme d’argent?

• Oui 1 MAXIMUM 1 PARTICIPANT SUR 3 PAR GROUPE
• Non 2 PASSER À Q1

S4) À quand remonte cette participation ?

METTRE FIN À L’ENTREVUE SI C’ÉTAIT AU COURS DES 6 DERNIERS MOIS

S5) À combien de discussions de groupe avec des consommateurs avez-vous participé au cours des cinq (5) dernières années ?

TERMINER SI A PARTICIPÉ À PLUS DE 4 DISCUSSIONS DE GROUPE

DEMANDER À TOUS

Q1) À quel groupe d’âge appartenez-vous ? ( RECRUTER UNE BONNE VARIÉTÉ POUR CHAQUE GROUPE, MAXIMUM DE 2 PERSONNES DE 65 ANS ET PLUS)

• Moins de 18 ans 0 REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN
• 18-24 ans 1
• 25-34 ans 2
• 35-44 ans 3
• 45-54 ans 4
• 55-64 ans 5
• 65 ans et plus 6
• Refuse 9 REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN

Q2) Quel est le plus haut niveau de scolarité que vous avez atteint ? (RECRUTER UNE BONNE VARIÉTÉ POUR CHAQUE GROUPE.)

• Études secondaires incomplètes 1
• Études secondaires terminées 2
• Études collégiales/universitaires incomplètes 3
• Études collégiales/universitaires terminées 4
• Refus/ne sait pas 9

Q3) Quelle est votre situation d’emploi actuelle ? (DE 5 À 9, MAXIMUM DE 3 PAR GROUPE)

• Employé à temps plein 1
• Employé à temps partiel 2
• Travailleur autonome 3
• Retraité 4
• Sans emploi 5
• Étudiant 6
• Autre 7
• Ne sait pas/refuse 9

Q4) [SI EMPLOYÉ/RETRAITÉ] Quelle est votre profession actuelle ou quelle était votre profession antérieure ? __________________________ (PRÉCISER : SI LE RÉPONDANT TRAVAILLE OU TRAVAILLAIT DE PRÈS OU DE LOIN DANS LA PRÉPARATION DE DÉCLARATIONS DE REVENUS DES PARTICULIERS, COMME FISCALISTE OU COMPTABLE, OU DANS UNE INDUSTRIE CONNEXE, L’INDIQUER POUR LE SUPERVISEUR.)

Q5) Au cours des douze (12) derniers mois, avez-vous communiqué personnellement avec le gouvernement du Canada pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons suivantes :

• Demande ou renouvellement de passeport 1
• Demande d’assurance-emploi ou autres prestations comme le Régime de pensions du Canada ou la Sécurité de la vieillesse 2
• Communication avec l’Agence du revenu du Canada pour une autre raison que la production d’une déclaration de revenu des particuliers ou de société [NE PAS LIRE: QUELQUES EXEMPLES: DEMANDER DES RENSEIGNEMENTS GÉNÉRAUX, DEMANDER DES PRÉCISIONS SUR RENSEIGNEMENTS REÇUS DE L’ARC, DEMANDER DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA PRODUCTION DE DÉCLARATION DE REVENUS, ESSAYER DE RÉSOUDRE UN DIFFÉREND AVEC D’ARC, CHANGER INFORMATION PERSONNELLE, OU EFFECTUER UN PAIEMENT DÛ] 3
• Demande d’Allocation canadienne pour enfants 4

SI LE RÉPONDANT A INTERAGI AVEC L’ARC (nº 3 ci-dessus), IL SE QUALIFIE POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8 ET 10 SINON, POUR LES GROUPES 1, 3, 5, 7 ET 9.

Q6) Laquelle des catégories suivantes décrit le mieux le revenu total de votre ménage, c’est-à-dire le total combiné des revenus de tous les membres de votre ménage, avant impôts ? [LIRE LA LISTE, RECRUTER UNE BONNE VARIÉTÉ POUR CHAQUE GROUPE]

• Moins de 20 000 $ 1
• 20 000 $ à moins de 40 000 $ 2
• 40 000 $ à moins de 60 000 $ 3
• 60 000 $ à moins de 80 000 $ 4
• 80 000 $ à moins de 100 000 $ 5
• 100 000 $ à moins de 150 000 $ 6
• 150 000 $ et plus 7
• Ne sait pas/refuse 99 REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN

Q7) Vous considérez-vous comme faisant partie d’un groupe ethnoculturel visible ?

• Oui CONTINUER
• Non PASSER À Q9

Q8) Quelle est votre ethnicité? NOTER :

Ethnicité : ______________

Dans chaque ville, recruter au moins deux (2) personnes par groupe qui ne sont pas de descendance européenne ou qui appartiennent à une autre minorité visible (p. ex., Chinois ou Sud asiatiques, mais aussi comprenant les Autochtones ou les Afro-Canadiens.

Q9) NE PAS DEMANDER : NOTER LE SEXE. (RECRUTER 50 % D’HOMMES ET 50 % DE FEMMES).

• Homme 1
• Femme 2

Q10) Si vous remportiez un million de dollars, quelles seraient les deux premières choses que vous feriez avec cet argent ? (DOIT FOURNIR DEUX RÉPONSES. METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN SI LE RÉPONDANT EST HÉSITANT, COMBATIF OU A DE LA DIFFICULTÉ À RÉPONDRE.)

METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN SI LE RÉPONDANT INVOQUE UNE RAISON COMME UN TROUBLE AUDITIF OU VISUEL, UN PROBLÈME VERBAL OU D’ÉCRITURE, UNE INQUIÉTUDE À NE PAS POUVOIR COMMUNIQUER EFFICACEMENT OU SI AUTRE CHOSE VOUS PRÉOCCUPE.

Invitation

Comme je l’ai mentionné plus tôt, la discussion de groupe aura lieu en soirée, le DATE à HEURE et durera deux (2) heures. Chaque participant recevra un montant de 75 $. Acceptez-vous de participer?

• Oui 1 CONTINUER
• Non 2 REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN

QUESTIONS SUR LA VIE PRIVÉE

Merci d'avoir accepté de participer à la discussion. Nous transmettrons votre nom aux gens qui vous recevront afin qu’ils puissent vous inscrire et vérifier votre identité à votre arrivée. Les séances seront enregistrées sur bande audio et/ou vidéo et feront l’objet d’une observation. Votre participation demeurera confidentielle. Veuillez noter que ces enregistrements ne serviront à aucune autre fin et seront détruits une fois le projet terminé. Au terme de la séance, votre nom sera transmis à l’ARIM (l’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing) pour être inscrit dans le Registre de la recherche qualitative comme participant au groupe de discussion. Personne ne communiquera avec vous pour quelque raison que ce soit parce que votre nom figure dans ce registre.

P1) Acceptez-vous ces conditions ?

• Oui 1 PASSER À L’INVITATION
• Non 2 DEMANDER UN SUIVI POUR FOURNIR DES EXPLICATIONS ET TENTER DE CONVAINCRE LE RÉPONDANT. S’IL REFUSE TOUJOURS, CLASSER L’APPEL COMME IL SE DOIT.

P1a) Pouvez-vous me dire lequel de ces aspects vous préoccupe ?

SI C’EST POSSIBLE, TENTER D’APAISER LES INQUIÉTUDES. SI C’EST IMPOSSIBLE, REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN.

• Fournir votre nom 1 NQP1
• Enregistrement audio 2 NQP2
• Enregistrement vidéo 3 NQP3
• Registre de l’ARIM 4 NQP4

AU BESOIN, RENSEIGNEMENTS SUPPLÉMENTAIRES POUR L’INTERVIEWEUR :

Soyez assuré(e) que cette information demeurera confidentielle et seules les firmes de recherche marketing professionnelles pourront y accéder et l’utiliser pour vérifier la participation et empêcher les « répondants professionnels » de participer aux séances. Les firmes de recherche qui participent au Registre central de recherche qualitative de l’ARIM ont besoin de votre autorisation avant que vous ne soyez admissible à participer à la séance. Cette procédure contribue à assurer l’intégrité du processus de recherche.

La séance sera enregistrée sur bande vidéo aux fins de la recherche et des représentants de l’équipe de recherche du gouvernement du Canada observeront la séance à partir d’une salle adjacente. Vous serez invité à signer un formulaire de renonciation pour reconnaître que vous serez enregistré sur bande vidéo durant la séance. Les enregistrements seront utilisés uniquement par l’équipe de recherche du groupe-conseil Quorus et ne seront pas partagés avec qui que ce soit. Je vous rappelle que tous les renseignements recueillis durant la discussion demeureront confidentiels et serviront uniquement aux fins de la recherche, conformément aux lois en matière de protection de la vie privée.

AU BESOIN, REMARQUE À PROPOS DE L’ARIM :

L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing est un organisme à but non lucratif qui regroupe des professionnels de la recherche marketing œuvrant dans le domaine du marketing, de la publicité, des recherches sociales et politiques. La mission de l’Association consiste à être le chef de file de la promotion de l’excellence dans la pratique du marketing et des recherches sociales ainsi que dans la valeur de l’information sur les marchés.

Invitation:

DAvez-vous un stylo à portée de la main pour noter l’adresse où se tiendra la séance ? Elle aura lieu à :

Halifax, Nouvelle-Écosse
CRA (Corporate Research Associates)
7071 Bayers Road bureau 5001
Halifax, NS B3L 2C2

Montréal, Québec
Nielsen Opinion Quest
1080 Côte du Beaver Hall, 4e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1S8

Brampton, ON
Contract Testing Inc.
119 West Drive
Brampton, ON L6T 2J6

Saskatoon, SK
Insightrix
1-3223 Millar Avenue
Saskatoon, SK S7K 5Y3

Vancouver, BC
Consumer Research Centre
1398 West 7th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6H 3W5

Nous vous demandons d’arriver 15 minutes avant l’heure prévue pour trouver un stationnement, localiser les bureaux et vous présenter aux animateurs. Ces derniers pourraient vérifier l’identité des répondants avant le début de la discussion. Assurez-vous d’apporter vos pièces d’identité (par exemple votre permis de conduire). Assurez-vous d’apporter vos lunettes si vous en avez besoin pour lire.

Comme nous n’invitons qu’un petit nombre de personnes, votre participation est très importante pour nous. Si, pour quelque raison que ce soit, vous ne pouvez pas vous présenter à la séance, veuillez nous en aviser afin que nous puissions trouver un remplaçant. Vous pouvez communiquer avec nous au siège social au [NUMÉRO] et demander à parler à [NOM]. Quelqu’un vous appellera la veille de la rencontre pour vous rappeler de vous rendre à la discussion.

Pourriez-vous me confirmer votre nom et vos coordonnées pour que nous puissions vous communiquer le rappel ou vous faire part de tout changement? [LIRE L’INFORMATION ET APPORTER LES CHANGEMENTS, S’IL Y A LIEU.]

Prénom
Nom
Courriel
Nº de téléphone (le jour)
Nº de téléphone (le soir)

Si le répondant refuse de fournir son prénom, son nom ou son numéro de téléphone, veuillez l’assurer que cette information demeurera strictement confidentielle conformément à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, et que ladite information sera utilisée seulement pour communiquer avec lui afin de confirmer sa présence et de l’informer de tout changement relatif à la discussion de groupe. Si le répondant refuse encore, REMERCIER ET METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN.

Merci infiniment de votre collaboration !

Appendix B – Focus Group Moderation Guide / Guide de discussion

Fairness in Tax Administration Focus Groups

1. Introduction and Participant Warm-up (10 minutes)

The moderator will begin by thanking participants for their time and providing them some context for the purpose of the session. Then a few ground rules will be outlined:

• want to ensure that people share their views openly;
• let everyone participate, want people to talk about their views, not “other people’s views”;
• ensure that we don’t want people to “debate” each other – everyone’s views are valid, there are no right or wrong answers;
• the moderator will make sure everyone gets a turn, even those who are not naturally inclined to share – this may mean that someone else will be asked to cut their opinion short a bit;
• remind participants of confidentiality, no specific names and opinions of individuals will be reported on and that the session will last 2 hours.

The moderator will also point out that there is a one-way mirror, observers in the back, audio and videotaping.

Introductions

I’d like you to tell me a bit about yourself, such as:

• What do you do for a living?
• In what part of town or area do you live?
• Who do you live with? … kids? If so, how many? … what age?

2. Warm-Up (10 minutes)

Let’s start off by talking about Government of Canada services. Over the past year or so, have you used any Government of Canada services? If so, which ones? (IF NEEDED: …this would involve contacting the Government of Canada to apply for a benefit, request information or documentation, etc. Common ones are applying for a passport, applying for EI, etc.)

• How did you access the service (AS NECESSARY: over the phone, in-person, online?)
• How was your experience?
  • What made the experience positive?
  • What made the experience not as positive as you would have liked or expected?
• FLIP CHART: When you’re accessing a Government of Canada service, what is most important for you? (PROMPT AS NECESSARY: quick access to assistance, how easy the information you receive is to understand, how quickly your service need is resolved and whether you get desired results (i.e. timely and effective), good customer service, respectful interactions, etc.)
• Looking at the list of what you have told me is important (pointing to list on flip chart), do your expectations change depending on the service you are using or the Department you are dealing with?
  • IF NEEDED: For instance, when you are applying for benefits or contacting the government about your personal taxes, are your expectations any different compared to when you access other Government of Canada services?

3. CRA – GENERAL EXPLORATION OF FAIRNESS (35 minutes)

I’d like to spend the rest of the session discussing one department in particular – the Canada Revenue Agency.

Before we open up the discussion, I’ll ask you to complete the following handout (MODERATOR PROVIDES AND EXPLAINS HANDOUT #1).

Moderator to read the following to all participants: The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) administers tax laws for the Government of Canada and for most provinces and territories, and administers various social and economic benefit and incentive programs delivered through the tax system.

The CRA does not establish tax rates and create benefit and incentive programs.

AFTER PARTICIPANTS HAVE COMPLETED THE HANDOUT - We won’t have a chance to discuss each of these dimensions – one that is of particular interest to me though is how you rated the CRA on being fair – let’s go around the table and tell me what rating you provided for that dimension and where it fits in terms of importance. MODERATOR TALLIES SCORES THEN DISCUSSES THE FOLLOWING:

• In your own words, what does it mean to you that the CRA is “fair”? What is your interpretation of “fair”? How do you define “fairness” in the context of the CRA?
• For those of you who gave a score of 8 or higher - what makes you feel that way? Can you give me some examples?
• For those of you who gave a score of 5, 6 or 7 - what makes you feel that way? Can you give me some examples?
• And for those who gave a score of 4 or less - what makes you feel that way? Can you give me some examples?

Would your score have been different last year, or the year before if I had asked you that question? Would it have been better or worse?

• What, if anything, do you feel has changed? What makes you say that the CRA has been improving or getting worse when it comes to “fairness”?

4. FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS (15 minutes)

As some of you know, there are some basic steps when it comes to managing your personal income tax returns – they are listed on this handout. (MODERATOR PROVIDES HANDOUT #2).

Let’s go through each one of these steps…

Preparing a Return

When it comes to preparing your return:

• What aspects of this process would you consider as part of “fairness”?
• Is there anything related to that part of the tax return process that you consider unfair?
• How can CRA make this part of the process fairer for Canadians?

Filing a Return

When it comes to filing your return:

• What aspects of this process would you consider as part of “fairness”?
• Is there anything related to that part of your tax return process that you consider unfair?
• How can CRA make this part of the process fairer for Canadians?

Notice of Assessment

After you have filed your tax return and the CRA has assessed it, they will send you a summary of your return called a Notice of Assessment. It is usually a few pages and it includes various information such as the main revenue and credit lines from your tax return and whether you have a tax refund or you owe money. If you still receive your tax refund by cheque, this Notice usually accompanies the cheque. It also provides information on RRSP contributions. The Notice will also explain any differences between CRA’s assessment and what you submitted. When it comes to your notice of assessment:

• What aspects of this process would you consider as part of “fairness”?
• Is there anything related to that part of your tax return process that you consider unfair?
• How can CRA make this part of the process fairer for Canadians?

Refunds and Payment

When it comes to receiving refunds or making payments:

• What aspects of this process would you consider as part of “fairness”?
• Is there anything related to that part of your tax return process that you consider unfair?
• PROBE IF NOT ALREADY MENTIONED: What about when it comes to penalties and interests for late payments specifically - is there anything related to that part of your tax return process that you consider unfair? Bear in mind that the CRA only administers tax laws, they are not the ones who determine how penalties and interests owed are calculated.
• How can CRA make this part of the process fairer for Canadians?

Audits

When it comes to audits: (IF NEEDED: Let’s be careful here – being asked to provide a few receipts or supporting documents does not mean you have been audited! An audit is a comprehensive review of your revenues, credits, etc. led by a CRA auditor.)

• What aspects of this process would you consider as part of “fairness”?
• Is there anything related to audits that you consider unfair?
• How can CRA make audits fairer for Canadians?
• Do you feel the CRA is fair in its audit coverage of ALL Canadians?
• The CRA uses various information gathering strategies and resources to help identify Canadians who are perhaps not paying what they should be paying in terms of taxes. As far as you know, are there any such strategies that you consider unfair?
  • The CRA uses external and public sources of information such as social media, including Facebook, to feed into its audit assessment activities – what do you think of this? Is this fair?

Section overview: Across all the steps in the process, what area do you believe the CRA needs to prioritize if it wants to make the process fairer for Canadians? Put a star beside the step, we will do a quick inventory and we will quickly discuss what was flagged by the group.

5. FAIRNESS IN COMMUNICATION AND SUPPORT (15 minutes)

Communication

• What are your thoughts on how the CRA communicates with Canadians?
• What makes its approach to communication fair?
• Is there anything that you consider unfair in how the CRA communicates with Canadians? What, if anything, do you believe needs to change in terms of…
  • …how the CRA communicates? PROMPT FOR THE FOLLOWING AS NEEDED: What about when it comes to…
    • …written correspondence?
    • …call centres?
    • … press releases?
    • …emails?
    • …through online accounts like My Account?
  • …what it communicates?
  • …how often it communicates?

Support

• What are your thoughts on how the CRA provides support to Canadians who have questions, need help along the way in managing their tax return or to keep them informed?
• What makes its approach to support fair?
• Is there anything that you consider unfair in how the CRA supports Canadians?
• Do you look to other sources for support, such as the use of income tax software or tax professionals?
• Do you have any specific feedback on the impact the following have on your perception of fairness?
  • CRA website
  • Call centre
  • My Account
  • Tax Services Offices
  • Mobile app
• Do you have any specific feedback in terms of how fairly the CRA acts when it comes to complaints or disputes?

6. FAIRNESS IN LIFE EVENTS (10 minutes)

Your interactions with the CRA change throughout your life and various life events might warrant a permanent or a temporary change in your tax return process or warrant reaching out to the CRA for whatever reason.

• Is there a life event that comes to mind where you feel the CRA falls short in terms of being fair?
• What about when someone has a baby? …what, if anything, needs to change so that CRA is fairer with those Canadians?
• What about…
  • When someone’s marital status changes?
  • When someone retires?
  • A loved one passes away and you need to look after their taxes?
  • Special needs, mental illness or injury in the family?
  • When someone moves?
  • In the case of a disaster?

  …what, if anything, needs to change so that CRA is fairer with Canadians in these situations?

• Is there any other life event that comes to mind where you feel CRA falls short in terms of being fair?
• Were any of you aware that penalties or interests may be cancelled or waived in whole or in part when they result from circumstances beyond a taxpayer's control? IF EXAMPLES ARE NEEDED: It might include, but is not limited to the following examples:
  • natural or human-made disasters, such as a flood or fire;
  • civil disturbances or disruptions in services, such as a postal strike;
  • an action by the CRA (e.g. a processing error, a processing delay, etc.);
  • serious illness or accident; and
  • serious emotional or mental distress, such as death in the immediate family.
• How does this information change your views on the CRA and whether or not they are “fair”?

7. FAIRNESS FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY (10 minutes)

Different Canadians are faced with different reporting requirements and benefits. I’d like to discuss a few and for each one, let’s explore whether you feel CRA needs to change to improve how fairly they treat them.

• Is there any segment of society that comes to mind where you feel CRA falls short in terms of being fair? PROBE AS NEEDED: What about…
  • Youth or students?
  • Newcomers or refugees?
  • Persons with disabilities?
  • Self-employed?
  • Aboriginal peoples?

  Are you aware of anything that might suggest CRA is not fair with these individuals? …what, if anything, needs to change so that CRA is fairer with this specific group of individuals?

• Is there any other segment of society that comes to mind where you feel CRA falls short in terms of being fair?

8. CONCLUSION AND WRAP-UP (15 minutes)

Now that we’ve had the chance to discuss fairness at the CRA, is there any other way you feel the CRA is not being fair with you or with Canadians in general?

(PROVIDE HANDOUT #3) Please complete the following exercise where I’d like you to identify the top three changes you believe the CRA needs to make in order to become fairer for Canadians. DISCUSS RESPONSES – TIME PERMITTING

[WHILE PARTICIPANTS DO THIS EXERCISE, MODERATOR DISCUSSES ANY OUTSTANDING ITEMS WITH CLIENTS]

I’d like to wrap up the session by showing you the most recent working definition of “fairness” that the CRA is using (PROVIDE HANDOUT #4). As you read, feel free to take down notes, circle things you like or anything you don’t like.

Fairness in tax administration is achieved when well-informed taxpayers trust that they have paid their fair share as required by the law – nothing more, nothing less – and they trust that all other taxpayers have done the same.

This trust is informed by:

• Our behaviours: how we treat taxpayers in our interactions
• Our processes: the timeliness and efficiency of our processes
• Our compliance action: equality before the law
• How do you react to this?
• Do you disagree with anything?
• Is there anything missing?

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Groupes de discussion sur l’équité dans l’administration de l’impôt

1. Introduction et exercice de réchauffement (10 minutes)

Le modérateur remercie d’abord les participants et leur fournit quelques renseignements pour les mettre en contexte. Il leur explique également les règles de base à suivre :

• Nous voulons nous assurer que tous les participants expriment ouvertement leurs opinions.
• Nous vous encourageons tous à participer et à exprimer vos points de vue et non ceux des autres.
• Ceci n’est pas un débat. Toutes les opinions sont valables et il n’y a pas de bonnes ou de mauvaises réponses.
• Le modérateur veillera à ce que chacun ait l’occasion de prendre la parole, même ceux qui ne sont pas naturellement enclins à s’exprimer. Il pourrait demander à certains participants d’abréger leurs propos.
• Tous les commentaires recueillis demeureront confidentiels. Aucun nom ni aucune opinion individuelle ne seront mentionnés dans le rapport. La séance durera deux (2) heures.

La salle est équipée d’un miroir d’observation derrière lequel des personnes assisteront à la séance. La discussion sera enregistrée sur bande audiovisuelle.

Parlez-moi un peu de vous. Par exemple :

• Quel métier ou quelle profession exercez-vous?
• Dans quel secteur de la ville habitez-vous?
• Avec qui habitez-vous? Avec des enfants? Si tel est le cas, quel âge ont-ils?

2. Exercice de réchauffement (10 minutes)

Parlons d’abord des services offerts par le gouvernement du Canada. Au cours de la dernière année, avez-vous utilisé des services du gouvernement du Canada? Si c’est le cas, lesquels? (AU BESOIN : Il pourrait s’agir d’un contact avec le gouvernement du Canada pour présenter une demande de prestations, d’information ou de documentation, les plus courantes étant les demandes de passeport, d’assurance-emploi, etc.)

• Comment avez-vous accédé au service? (AU BESOIN : au téléphone, en personne, en ligne)
• Quelle a été votre expérience?
  • Quels sont les aspects qui en ont fait une expérience positive?
  • Quels sont les aspects qui ont fait en sorte que l’expérience n’a pas été aussi positive que vous l’auriez voulu ou prévu?
• TABLEAU DE PAPIER : Lorsque vous utilisez un service du gouvernement du Canada, quels sont les aspects les plus importants pour vous? (SONDER AU BESOIN : accès rapide à de l’aide, information simple à comprendre, rapidité à laquelle on répond à vos besoins, résultats conformes à vos attentes (c.-à-d. rapidité et efficacité), excellent service à la clientèle, interactions respectueuses, etc.)
• Compte tenu des aspects que vous considérez importants (pointer la liste au tableau), est-ce que vos attentes varient selon le service que vous utilisez ou le ministère avec lequel vous transigez?
  • AU BESOIN : Par exemple, lorsque vous présentez une demande de prestations ou que vous communiquez avec le gouvernement relativement à vos impôts personnels, vos attentes sont-elles différentes de celles que vous avez lorsque vous utilisez d’autres services du gouvernement du Canada?

3. ARC – DISCUSSION SUR L’ÉQUITÉ (35 minutes)

Pour le reste de la séance, j’aimerais axer la discussion sur un ministère en particulier, l’Agence du revenu du Canada.

Avant de commencer la discussion, je vous invite à faire l’exercice que je m’apprête à vous distribuer (LE MODÉRATEUR DISTRIBUE ET EXPLIQUE LE PREMIER EXERCICE).

Le modérateur lit ce qui suit aux participants : L’Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) applique les lois fiscales pour le gouvernement du Canada et la plupart des provinces et territoires. Elle administre également divers programmes de prestations et d’incitatifs sociaux et économiques offerts au moyen du régime fiscal.

L’ARC ne fixe pas les taux d’imposition ni ne crée les programmes de prestations et d’incitatifs

UNE FOIS QUE LES PARTICIPANTS ONT TERMINÉ L’EXERCICE – Nous n’aurons pas le temps de discuter de tous ces aspects. Ce qui m’intéresse plus particulièrement est la note que vous avez donnée à l’ARC pour son sens de l’équité. Faisons un tour de table et dites-moi quelle est la note que vous lui avez donnée pour cet aspect et quelle est son importance. LE MODÉRATEUR CALCULE LES RÉSULTATS ET DISCUTE DE CE QUI SUIT :

• Expliquez-moi dans vos propres mots ce que signifie pour vous le mot « équitable » en lien avec l’ARC. Quelle est votre interprétation du mot « équitable »? Comment définissez-vous l’équité dans le contexte de l’ARC?
• Pour ceux parmi vous qui ont donné une note de 8 ou plus – Qu’est-ce qui vous faire dire cela? Pouvez-vous me donner des exemples?
• Pour ceux parmi vous qui ont donné une note de 5, 6 ou 7 – Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela? Pouvez-vous me donner des exemples?
• Pour ceux parmi vous qui ont donné une note de 4 ou moins – Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela? Pouvez-vous me donner des exemples?

Si je vous avais posé la même question l’an dernier ou l’année précédente, votre note aurait-elle été différente? Aurait-elle été plus haute ou plus basse?

• Selon vous, qu’est-ce qui a changé? Pourquoi dites-vous que l’ARC est maintenant plus équitable ou moins équitable?

4. ÉQUITÉ DU PROCESSUS (15 minutes)

Comme certains parmi vous le savent déjà, il y a quelques étapes fondamentales à suivre pour gérer vos déclarations d’impôt sur le revenu des particuliers. Elles sont énumérées sur la feuille que je vais vous distribuer. (LE MODÉRATEUR DISTRIBUE LA FEUILLE Nº 2).

Examinons chacune de ces étapes.

Préparation de la déclaration de revenus

Lorsqu’il s’agit de préparer votre déclaration de revenus :

• Quels sont les aspects du processus que vous jugez équitables?
• Quels sont les aspects de cette étape du processus que vous jugez inéquitables?
• Que pourrait faire l’ARC pour rendre cette étape du processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens?

Production de la déclaration de revenus

Lorsqu’il s’agit de produire votre déclaration de revenus :

• Quels sont les aspects du processus que vous jugez équitables?
• Quels sont les aspects de cette étape du processus que vous jugez inéquitables?
• Que pourrait faire l’ARC pour rendre cette étape du processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens?

Avis de cotisation

Une fois que vous avez produit votre déclaration de revenus et que l’ARC l’a évaluée, celle-ci vous fait alors parvenir un sommaire de votre déclaration, soit l’avis de cotisation. Ce document de plusieurs pages contient divers renseignements, comme le revenu principal et les renseignements relatifs aux crédits sur votre déclaration, et indique si vous recevez un remboursement d’impôt ou si vous devez payer un certain montant. Si vous recevez un chèque de remboursement, il est normalement accompagné de l’avis de cotisation. L’avis fournit des renseignements sur les cotisations au REER. Il explique également les écarts entre l’évaluation de l’ARC et les renseignements que vous avez soumis. En ce qui concerne l’avis de cotisation :

• Quels sont les aspects du processus que vous jugez équitables?
• Quels sont les aspects de cette étape du processus que vous jugez inéquitables?
• Que pourrait faire l’ARC pour rendre cette étape du processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens?

Remboursements et paiements

En ce qui concerne les remboursements et les paiements :

• Quels sont les aspects du processus que vous jugez équitables?
• Y a-t-il quoi que ce soit au sujet de cette étape du processus de déclaration de revenus que vous jugez
• SONDER SI CE N’EST PAS DÉJÀ MENTIONNÉ : Quels sont les aspects de l’étape des pénalités et des intérêts pour paiement en retard que vous jugez inéquitables? N’oubliez pas que l’ARC ne fait qu’appliquer les lois fiscales. Ce n’est pas elle qui détermine la manière dont les pénalités et les intérêts sont calculés.
• Que pourrait faire l’ARC pour rendre cette étape du processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens?

Vérifications fiscales

En ce qui concerne les vérifications fiscales : (AU BESOIN : Nous devons user de prudence ici. Le fait qu’on vous demande de fournir quelques reçus ou des pièces justificatives ne signifie pas que vous faites l’objet d’une vérification fiscale. La vérification fiscale est un examen exhaustif de vos revenus, vos crédits, etc. mené par un vérificateur de l’ARC.)

• Quels sont les aspects du processus que vous jugez équitables?
• Quels sont les aspects de cette étape du processus que vous jugez inéquitables?
• Que pourrait faire l’ARC pour rendre cette étape du processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens?
• Avez-vous l’impression que l’ARC est équitable en ce qui a trait à la portée de ses vérifications pour TOUS les Canadiens?
• L’ARC utilise diverses stratégies et ressources d’information pour déterminer qui sont les Canadiens qui ne paient pas les montants qu’ils devraient verser en impôts. Est-ce que certaines de ces stratégies vous semblent inéquitables?
  • L’ARC utilise des sources d’information externes et publiques, comme les médias sociaux, dont Facebook, pour mener ses activités d’évaluation. Que pensez-vous de cela? Est-ce équitable?

Aperçu de la section : Parmi toutes les étapes du processus, quelle est celle que l’ARC devrait mettre au premier plan pour rendre le processus plus équitable pour les Canadiens? Mettre une étoile à côté de l’étape en question. Nous ferons une récapitulation et nous discuterons des points soulevés par le groupe. p.

5. ÉQUITÉ DANS LA COMMUNICATION ET LE SOUTIEN (15 minutes)

Communication

• Que pensez-vous de la façon dont l’ARC communique avec les Canadiens?
• Quels sont les aspects qui rendent cette communication équitable?
• Y a-t-il quoi que ce soit que vous jugez inéquitable dans la façon dont l’ARC communique avec les Canadiens? Selon vous, que devrait-on changer à propos de…
  • … la façon dont l’ARC communique? SONDER AU BESOIN : Qu’en est-il de ce qui suit :
    • La correspondance écrite
    • Les centres d’appels
    • Les communiqués de presse
    • Les courriels
    • Les comptes en ligne comme Mon dossier
  • Les renseignements transmis
  • La fréquence des communications

Soutien

• Que pensez-vous du soutien apporté par l’ARC aux Canadiens qui ont besoin d’information et d’assistance pour gérer leurs déclarations de revenus ou pour rester informés?
• En quoi cette approche est-elle équitable?
• Y a-t-il quoi que ce soit d’inéquitable dans la façon dont l’ARC offre du soutien aux Canadiens?
• Consultez-vous d’autres sources pour obtenir de l’aide, comme un logiciel d’impôt ou des fiscalistes?
• Avez-vous des commentaires sur l’impact de chacun des outils suivants sur votre perception de l’équité?
  • Site web de l’ARC
  • Centre d’appels
  • Mon dossier
  • Bureaux des services fiscaux
  • Application mobile
• Avez-vous des commentaires à propos du traitement équitable des plaintes ou des différends par l’ARC?

6. ÉQUITÉ SELON LES ÉVÉNEMENTS DE LA VIE (10 minutes)

Vos interactions avec l’ARC évoluent tout au long de votre vie et certains événements pourraient occasionner un changement, permanent ou temporaire, de votre processus de déclaration de revenus ou vous pousser à contacter l’ARC pour une raison quelconque.

• Y a-t-il un événement de la vie qui vous vient à l’esprit et pour lequel vous estimez que l’ARC n’est pas équitable?
• Qu’en est-il des nouveaux parents? Que devrait-on changer pour que l’ARC soit plus équitable à l’égard des Canadiens?
• Que pensez-vous des situations suivantes…
  • Un changement dans l’état civil?
  • Un départ pour la retraite?
  • Le décès d’un proche et la prise en charge de ses impôts?
  • Un membre de la famille qui a des besoins spéciaux, une maladie mentale ou des blessures?
  • Un déménagement?
  • Une catastrophe?

  Que devrait-on changer, s’il y a lieu, pour que l’ARC soit plus équitable à l’égard des Canadiens qui vivent de telles situations?

• Y a-t-il d’autres événements de la vie pour lesquels l’ARC n’est pas suffisamment équitable?
• Saviez-vous que les pénalités ou les intérêts exigés peuvent être annulés, en tout ou en partie, lorsqu’ils découlent de circonstances qui sont hors du contrôle du contribuable? SI DES EXEMPLES SONT NÉCESSAIRES : Il pourrait s’agir de circonstances comme celles-ci :
  • Une catastrophe naturelle ou causée par l’homme, comme une inondation ou un incendie;
  • Une perturbation ou un désordre civil dans les services, comme une grève des postes;
  • Une mesure prise par l’ARC (p. ex., une erreur de traitement, un délai de traitement, etc.);
  • Une maladie grave ou un accident;
  • Un trouble émotif ou mental grave, comme le décès d’un membre de la famille immédiate.
• En quoi cette information change-t-elle votre opinion de l’ARC et de son sens de l’équité?

7. TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DE CERTAINS SEGMENTS DE LA POPULATION (10 minutes)

Des règles différentes en matière de déclarations et de prestations ont été établies pour les différents groupes de Canadiens. J’aimerais parler de certains de ces groupes et savoir si selon vous, l’ARC doit changer quoi que ce soit pour leur offrir un traitement plus équitable.

• Y a-t-il des segments de la population qui ne sont pas traités de manière équitable par l’ARC? SONDER AU BESOIN : Qu’en est-il…
  • des jeunes ou des étudiants?
  • des nouveaux arrivants ou des réfugiés?
  • des personnes handicapées?
  • des travailleurs autonomes?
  • des Autochtones?

  Avez-vous remarqué quoi que ce soit qui vous laisserait croire que l’ARC n’est pas équitable à l’égard de ces personnes? Que devrait-on changer, s’il y a lieu, pour que l’ARC soit plus équitable à l’égard de ces personnes ou de ces groupes de personnes?

• Y a-t-il d’autres segments de la population qui ne sont pas traités de manière équitable par l’ARC?

8. CONCLUSION (15 minutes)

Maintenant que nous avons discuté du sens de l’équité dont fait preuve l’ARC, y a-t-il d’autres aspects pour lesquels vous estimez que l’ARC ne vous offre pas un traitement équitable ou n’offre pas un traitement équitable aux Canadiens en général?

(DISTRIBUER LA FEUILLE Nº 3) Je vous invite à faire l’exercice suivant et à inscrire les trois (3) principaux changements que l’ARC devrait apporter selon vous pour être plus équitable à l’égard des Canadiens? DISCUTER DES RÉPONSES, SI LE TEMPS LE PERMET.

[PENDANT QUE LES PARTICIPANTS FONT L’EXERCICE, LE MODÉRATEUR DISCUTE DES POINTS QU’IL RESTE AVEC LES CLIENTS.]

En terminant, j’aimerais vous présenter la plus récente définition de la notion d’« équité » utilisée par l’ARC. (DISTRIBUER LA FEUILLE Nº 4) En la lisant, n’hésitez pas à prendre des notes ou à encercler les éléments que vous aimez ou que vous n’aimez pas.

L’équité dans l’administration de l’impôt est atteinte lorsque les contribuables avertis ont la certitude d’avoir payé leur juste part, comme l’exige la loi, ni plus ni moins, et la certitude que tous les autres contribuables ont fait de même.

Cette confiance repose sur plusieurs facteurs :

• Nos comportements : la manière dont nous traitons les contribuables dans nos interactions avec eux
• Nos processus : la rapidité et l’efficacité de nos processus
• Notre mesure de conformité : l’égalité devant la loi
• Que pensez-vous de cette définition?
• Êtes-vous en désaccord avec l’un ou l’autre de ces éléments?
• Manque-t-il quelque chose?

Merci infiniment de votre temps et de votre collaboration.

Appendix C – Focus Group Participant Materials / Fiches pour les participants

Focus Group Participant Materials

Handout 1

City______________ Group#_____________ First name:__________

IMPORTANT: The Canada Revenue AGency administers tax laws for the Government of Canada and for most provinces and territories, and administers various social and economic benefit and incentive programs delivered through the tax system. The CRA does not establish tax rates and create benefit and incentive programs.

1. How would you rate the CRA on the following dimensions? Focus on your personal income taxes only.

2. Use the last column to indicate how much weight each dimension carries when you consider how satisfied you are with the CRA overall. The areas that matter the most to you have more weight than the areas that matter less to you. The sum of all categories should equal 100.

Handout 2

City______________ Group#_____________ First name:__________

Preparing a return

Filing a return

Notice of Assessment

Refunds and payments

Audits

Handout 3

City______________ Group#_____________ First name:__________

Identify the top three changes you believe the CRA needs to make in order to become fairer for Canadians:

Handout 4

City______________ Group#_____________ First name:__________

Fairness in tax administration is achieved when well-informed taxpayers trust that they have paid their fair share as required by the law – nothing more, nothing less – and they trust that all other taxpayers have done the same.

This trust is informed by:

• Our behaviours: how we treat taxpayers in our interactions
• Our processes: the timeliness and efficiency of our processes
• Our compliance action: equality before the law

Fiches pour les participants

Fiche 1

Ville ______________ No. du Groupe _____________ Prénom :__________

IMPORTANT: L'Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) applique les lois fiscales pour le gouvernement du Canada et la plupart des provinces et territoires. Elle administre également divers programmes de prestations et d'incitatifs sociaux et économiques offerts au moyen du régime fiscal. L'ARC ne fixe pas les taux d'imposition ni ne crée les programmes des prestations et d'incitatifs.

1. Quelle note donnez-vous à l'ARC pour chacun des aspects suivants? Répondez uniquement en fonction de vos impôts sur le revenu des particuliers.

2. Utilisez la dernière colonne pour indiquer l'importance de chacun de ces aspects dans votre niveau de satisfaction envers l'ARC dans son ensemble. Le aspects qui comptent le plus pour vous devraiment avoire une note d'importance supérieure à ceux qui comptent le moins. le total de toutes les catégories doit être de 100.

Fiche 2

Ville ______________ No. du Groupe _____________ Prénom :__________

Préparation de la déclaration de revenus

Production de la déclaration de revenus

Avis de cotisation

Remboursements et paiements

Vérifications

Fiche 3

Ville ______________ No. du Groupe _____________ Prénom :__________

Noter les trois (3) principaux changements que l’ARC devrait apporter pour être plus équitable à l’égard des Canadiens :

Fiche 4

Ville ______________ No. du Groupe _____________ Prénom :__________

L’équité dans l’administration de l’impôt est atteinte lorsque les contribuables avertis ont la certitude d’avoir payé leur juste part, comme l’exige la loi, ni plus ni moins, et la certitude que tous les autres contribuables ont fait de même.

Cette confiance repose sur plusieurs facteurs :

• Nos comportements : la manière dont nous traitons les contribuables dans nos interactions avec eux
• Nos processus : la rapidité et l’efficacité de nos processus
• Notre mesure de conformité : l’égalité devant la loi

Appendix D – Survey Questionnaire / Questionnaire du sondage téléphonique

Survey Questionnaire

Fairness in Tax Administration Telephone Survey

Survey Introduction and Screening

Hello/Bonjour, my name is _________ and I am calling from Quorus Consulting on behalf of the Government of Canada. We are conducting a survey related to Canadians’ experiences with the Canada Revenue Agency. Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? (IF NEEDED: Je vous remercie. Quelqu'un vous rappellera bientôt pour mener le sondage en français.)

• English 1
• Français 2

The survey takes about 10 minutes and your responses will be kept entirely confidential and anonymous. If at any time during the survey you would prefer not to answer a specific question, you are allowed to do so. May I continue?

IF NEEDED: Your decision to participate is voluntary and will in no way affect your relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency or the Government of Canada. This call may be monitored or recorded for quality control purposes. This survey is registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) and the information provided will be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.

a) Have I reached you on your cellphone?

• Yes 1
• No 2 [SKIP TO S1]

b) [IF YES] Are you in an environment that allows you to comfortably continue with this survey?

• Yes 1
• No 2 [RESCHEDULE]

S1. TAX_SCREEN. We need to speak with a person in your household who is responsible in full or in part for preparing and filing their tax returns or those of other members of your household. If you get your taxes prepared by someone else, we would like to speak with the person in your household who coordinates that. Would you be that person or one of those persons?

• Yes [CONTINUE]
• No [ASK TO SPEAK TO ‘ELIGIBLE’ PERSON AND START AGAIN]
• [DO NOT READ] Refused to answer [THANK AND TERMINATE]

Overall Assessment

Throughout the survey, we will refer to the Canada Revenue Agency as the CRA.

Please remember as well that the CRA administers tax laws and various benefit and incentive programs delivered through the tax system. However, they do not determine how much your tax rate is. [IF NEEDED: They apply the tax rules to each taxpayer as they are written, they collect taxes, and deliver benefits.]

Finally, throughout the survey, we are focusing on your personal income taxes only and even if you get your taxes prepared by someone else, we are interested in your impressions based on your experiences or what you may have read or heard.

[IF ASKED: We are referring to your personal [in Quebec – “Federal”] income taxes, not your [all but QC] GST-HST, corporate, or payroll tax accounts.]

1. Overall, how would you rate the performance of the CRA when it comes to the administration of your taxes and benefits? Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you would rate their performance as being terrible and 10 means they are excellent.

[IF ASKED: Benefits include the Canada Child Benefit, GST/HST Credit, and the Disability Tax Credit]

• [0 -10]
• 99 Don’t know / Refuse

2. And now, how would you rate the CRA on the following dimensions using the same scale from 0 to 10? (READ ONLY IF NEEDED: Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you would rate their performance as being terrible and 10 means they are excellent.) So first, how would you rate them in terms of …

RANDOMIZE LIST

• Being transparent
• Being efficient
• Being fair
• Their services being easy to use
• Being client-service oriented
• Being accessible
• Being accurate

[0 -10]

99 Don’t know / Refuse

Fairness Drilldown

3. A. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to preparing and filing your taxes? Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly disagree and 10 means you strongly agree. RANDOMIZE LIST IN TWO BLOCKS: a) TO e) AND f) TO i)

• a) The level of effort or cost you need to prepare your tax return is fair.
• b) The CRA proactively communicates to you the tax credits and benefits to which you are entitled.
• c) In the event of an unforeseen circumstance beyond your control that would affect your ability to file or pay on time, you are confident that the CRA would be flexible.
• d) The CRA works with you to find reasonable payment options when the amount you owe is difficult for you to manage.
• e) The process of gathering the information you need to support your return is simple.
• f) The CRA does a good job of explaining the results of your tax return assessment.
• g) The CRA assesses your return in a timely fashion.
• h) If you are entitled to a refund, the CRA sends your money in a timely fashion.
• i) The penalties and interest the CRA charges on late payments are fair.

[0 -10]

99 Don’t know / Refuse

3.B. Now to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to the support and resources the CRA makes available to Canadians when they have a question regarding their tax return or their assessment? (READ ONLY IF NEEDED: Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly disagree and 10 means you strongly agree.) RANDOMIZE LIST

• The CRA provides support and resources that are easy to understand.
• The CRA provides support and resources that are easy to access.
• The CRA provides support and resources that are accurate.

[0 -10]

99 Don’t know / Refuse

3.C. Now to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements related to efforts the CRA makes to ensure tax payers are compliant? (READ ONLY IF NEEDED: Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly disagree and 10 means you strongly agree.) RANDOMIZE LIST

• How the CRA decides who to audit is fair.
• The CRA does a good job of explaining to Canadians how much money is collected through the CRA’s audits.
• The CRA’s requests for clarifications or supporting documentation when they review your return are fair.
• If you overlooked some credits, you are confident the CRA will bring it to your attention when they review your return. [IF NEEDED: A credit is an opportunity for you to reduce your taxes owed.]
• If you overlooked something in your return and you owe the CRA more money than expected, you are confident the CRA will bring it to your attention when they review your return.

[0 -10]

99 Don’t know / Refuse

4. Please stop me at the category that best describes your current employment status: READ LIST — SINGLE MENTION

• Working full-time, that is, 35 or more hours per week? 1
• Working part-time, that is, less than 35 hours per week? 2
• Self-employed? 3
• Unemployed, but looking for work? 4
• A student attending school full-time? 5
• Retired? 6
• Not in the workforce? [Full-time homemaker, unemployed, not looking for work] 7
• [DO NOT READ] Other: _______[DO NOT SPECIFY] 77
• [DO NOT READ] Refused 99

5. Over the past year, have you had any of the following interactions with the CRA: READ LIST – ACCEPT ALL THAT APPLY

• 01 – You looked for general information
• 02 – You looked for clarification of information sent to you by the CRA
• 03 – You needed to make a payment owing on your taxes
• 04 – You tried to resolve a dispute you had with the CRA
• 05 – You looked for information about filing your taxes
• 06 – You went through a formal audit, which is different from a request for clarification or supporting documentation needed to assess your return
• 07 – You were contacted by the CRA for clarification or supporting documentation they needed while assessing your return, outside of an audit
• 08 – [READ ONLY IF SELF-EMPLOYED IN PREVIOUS QUESTION] The CRA contacted you, as a self-employed businessperson, and provided you with assistance through its Liaison Officer Initiative.
  VOLUNTEERED
• 98 – NONE OF THE ABOVE
• 99 – DK/REF

6. Over the past year, have you used or accessed any of the following: READ LIST – ACCEPT ALL THAT APPLY

• 01 – The CRA website
• 02 – The CRA’s 1-800 information line
• 03 – The CRA’s My Account (IF NEEDED: This is a password-protected online feature of the CRA website where you can track your refund, view or change your return, check your benefit and credit payments, view your RRSP limit, set up direct deposit and receive online mail among other things.)
• 04 – The CRA mobile app
• 05 – You visited a Service Canada office to discuss your personal taxes
  VOLUNTEERED
• 98 – NONE OF THE ABOVE
• 99 – DK/REF

7. When you deal with someone from the CRA over the phone, how often would you say…RANDOMIZE LIST Would that be… [READ SCALE] IF RESPONDENT HAS NEVER CALLED THE CRA OR DOES NOT REMEMBER THE CRA, SELECT CODE 06

PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTIONS: If respondent has never called the CRA or does not remember the last time they called, the interviewer is to select code 06 for the first rated item and then skip to Q8

• a) The agents are respectful.
• b) The agents provide you with accurate information.
• c) The wait time on the line before getting through to an agent is acceptable.
• d) The agents fully answer all your questions.
• e) The agents care about the tax situation with which you are dealing.

REPEAT SCALE ONLY IF NEEDED

• 01 - Always
• 02 - Often
• 03 - Sometimes
• 04 - Rarely
• 05 - Never
• [DO NOT READ] 06 – I have never called the CRA / It has been too long since I’ve called the CRA
• [DO NOT READ] 99 – CAN’T REMEMBER / REFUSE

8. [ASK IF AUDITED IN PAST YEAR – CODE 06 IN Q5] To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your most recent personal income tax audit experience with the CRA, again using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly disagree and 10 means you strongly agree. DO NOT RANDOMIZE LIST

• a) The audit process was fair.
• b) The CRA or the auditor clearly explained the audit process.
• c) You were provided enough time and guidance to address the requirements of the audit.
• d) At the end of the audit, you felt the auditor had understood your position.
• e) The auditor clearly explained the results of the audit.
• f) The auditor was professional.
• g) The auditor was respectful.
• h) The auditor was knowledgeable.
• i) The auditor cared about the tax situation with which you were dealing.
• j) The outcome of the audit was fair.

[0 -10]

99 Don’t know / Refuse

9. Which of the following best represents how your 2015 income tax return was prepared? READ LIST – SINGLE MENTION

• 01 - You prepared it on your own.
• 02 - You prepared it with the assistance of a family member or a friend.
• 03 - It was prepared by a volunteer through the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program.
• 04 - It was prepared by an accountant or a tax preparation company such as H&R Block?
• [DO NOT READ] 05 - I did not submit an income tax return last year
• [DO NOT READ] 99 – CAN’T REMEMBER / REFUSE

[IF PREPARED ON YOUR OWN OR WITH ASSISTANCE OF FAMILY MEMBER/FRIEND OR BY VOLUNTEER, ASK FOLLOWING QUESTION - IF IT WAS PREPARED BY ACCOUNTANT OR TAX PREPARATION COMPANY, CODE AS E-FILERS AND SKIP THE FOLLOWING QUESTION]

10. How was your income tax return submitted last year? Was it filed on paper, or was it filed electronically over the Internet (if necessary, specify: using Netfile)? REPEAT LIST IF NECESSARY - SINGLE MENTION

• 01 - On paper
• 02 - Electronically/over the Internet (Netfile)
• [DO NOT READ] 99 – CAN’T REMEMBER / REFUSE

Demographics

We have just a few final demographic questions that will be used to help us analyze the survey results.

11. In what year were you born? [Record year – XXXX]

[IF PREFERS NOT TO PROVIDE A PRECISE BIRTH YEAR, ASK:]

Would you be willing to tell me in which of the following age categories you belong?

• 18 to 34 1
• 35 to 49 2
• 50 to 54 3
• 55 to 64 4
• OR 65 or older? 5
• [DO NOT READ] Refused 99

12. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? READ LIST

• Grade 8 or less 1
• Some high school 2
• High School diploma or equivalent 3
• Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma 4
• College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma 5
• University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level 6
• Bachelor's degree 7
• Post graduate degree above bachelor's level 8
• [DO NOT READ] Prefer not to answer 99

13. What language do you speak most often at home? READ LIST — ACCEPT ALL THAT APPLY

• English 1
• French 2
• Other, please specify: _____ 77
• [DO NOT READ] Don’t know/Refused 99

14. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes? READ LIST – SINGLE MENTION

• Under $20,000 1
• $20,000 to just under $40,000 2
• $40,000 to just under $60,000 3
• $60,000 to just under $80,000 4
• $80,000 to just under $100,000 5
• $100,000 to just under $150,000 6
• $150,000 and above 7
• [DO NOT READ] Refused 99

15. And could you please provide me with the first three digits of your postal code:

__ __ __ [FORMAT A1A]
[DO NOT READ] Refused 99

16. Gender [Do not ask: record based on interviewer observation]

Those are all the questions we had for you – thank you very much for your time and have a great day!

Questionnaire du sondage téléphonique

Sondage téléphonique sur l’équité en matière d’administration de l’impôt

Introduction au sondage et critères de présélection

Bonjour/Hello, je m’appelle _________ et je téléphone de la part du groupe conseil Quorus au nom du gouvernement du Canada. Nous effectuons un sondage auprès des Canadiens concernant leur expérience avec l’Agence du revenu du Canada. Voulez-vous que je continue en français ou en anglais? Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? (AU BESOIN : Thank you. Someone will call you back shortly to complete the survey in English.)

• Anglais 1
• Français 2

Il ne vous faudra que dix minutes pour répondre au sondage et vos réponses resteront strictement confidentielles et anonymes. À tout moment, vous êtes libre de choisir de ne pas répondre à l’une des questions du sondage. Puis-je continuer?

AU BESOIN : La participation à ce sondage est volontaire et votre décision d’y participer ou non n’aura aucune incidence sur votre relation avec l’Agence du revenu du Canada ou le gouvernement du Canada. Cet appel peut être écouté ou enregistré aux fins de contrôle de la qualité. Ce sondage est enregistré auprès de l’Association de la Recherche et de l’Intelligence Marketing (ARIM). Les renseignements qu’il contient seront traités conformément aux exigences de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.

a) a) Est-ce que je vous ai appelé sur votre téléphone cellulaire?

• Oui 1
• Non 2 [PASSER À LA QUESTION S1]

b)[SI LA RÉPONSE EST OUI] Êtes-vous dans un environnement qui vous permet de continuer aisément à répondre à ce sondage?

• Oui 1
• Non 2 [REMETTRE À PLUS TARD]

S1. SÉLECTION DE LA PERSONNE ADMISSIBLE EN MATIÈRE D’IMPÔT Je dois m’adresser à la personne de votre ménage qui est responsable, en totalité ou en partie, de la préparation de sa propre déclaration de revenus ou de celles des autres membres de votre ménage. Si votre déclaration de revenus est préparée par quelqu’un d’autre, nous aimerions parler avec la personne de votre ménage qui coordonne cette tâche. S’agit-il de vous ou d’une de ces personnes?

• Oui [CONTINUER]
• Non [DEMANDER LA PERSONNE ÉLIGIBLE ET RECOMMENCER]
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] A refusé de répondre [REMERCIEZ LE RÉPONDANT ET METTEZ FIN À L’APPEL]

Évaluation globale

Pendant le sondage, je vais appeler l’Agence du revenu du Canada par son acronyme, soit l’ARC.

N’oubliez pas non plus que l’ARC administre les lois fiscales et divers programmes de prestations et d’encouragement fiscal offerts au moyen du régime fiscal. Toutefois, l’ARC ne fixe pas votre taux d’imposition. [AU BESOIN : Elle applique les règles fiscales à chaque contribuable qui sont écrites pour percevoir les impôts et verser les prestations.]

Enfin, nous nous concentrerons sur votre déclaration de revenus de particulier et, même si vos déclarations sont préparées par quelqu’un d’autre, nous souhaitons connaître vos impressions, selon vos expériences ou ce que vous avez possiblement lu ou entendu.

[AU BESOIN : Nous nous concentrerons sur votre impôt (au Québec – « fédéral ») sur le revenu des particuliers, et non la TPS/TVH (tous, mais pas mentionné au QC), comptes d’entreprise, ou comptes de retenues sur la paie]

1. Globalement, comment évalueriez-vous le rendement de l’ARC en ce qui a trait à l’administration de votre déclaration de revenus et de prestations? Veuillez utiliser une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous évaluez le rendement de l’ARC comme étant médiocre et « 10 » signifie que son rendement est excellent..

[AU BESOIN : Les prestations comprennent l’Allocation canadienne pour enfants, le crédit pour la TPS/TVH et le crédit d’impôt pour personnes handicapées.]

• [0 -10]
• 99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

2. Et maintenant, comment évalueriez-vous l’ARC sur les aspects suivants en utilisant la même échelle de 0 à 10? (LIRE CETTE PARTIE, SEULEMENT AU BESOIN : Veuillez utiliser une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous évaluez le rendement de l’ARC comme étant médiocre et « 10 » signifie que son rendement est excellent.) Premièrement, comment évalueriez-vous l’ARC…

LISTE ALÉATOIRE

• En termes de transparence
• En termes d’efficacité
• En termes d’équité
• En termes d’avoir des services faciles à utiliser
• En termes d’être axé sur le service à la clientèle
• En termes d’accessibilité
• En termes d’exactitude

[0 -10]

99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

Focus sur l’équité

3. A. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous en accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants liés à la préparation et la production de votre déclaration de revenus? Veuillez utiliser une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait en désaccord et où « 10 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait d’accord. LISTE ALÉATOIRE EN DEUX BLOCS : DE a) À e) ET DE f) À i)

• a) Le niveau d’effort que vous avez besoin de déployer ou les frais que vous devez payer pour préparer votre déclaration de revenus sont équitables.
• b) L’ARC vous communique de manière proactive les crédits d’impôt et prestations auxquels vous avez droit.
• c) En cas de circonstances imprévues et indépendantes de votre volonté, qui pourraient avoir une incidence sur votre capacité à produire votre déclaration de revenus ou de payer vos cotisations à temps, vous avez confiance que l’ARC ferait preuve de flexibilité.
• d) L’ARC travaille avec vous afin de trouver des options de paiement raisonnables lorsque vous avez de la difficulté à rembourser le montant que vous devez.
• e) Le processus de recueillir les renseignements dont vous avez besoin pour appuyer votre déclaration de revenus est simple.
• f) L’ARC fait un bon travail pour expliquer les résultats relatifs à votre déclaration de revenus et aux cotisations en découlant.
• g) L’ARC évalue votre déclaration de revenus en temps opportun.
• h) Si vous avez droit à un remboursement, l’ARC vous le fait parvenir en temps opportun.
• i) L’ARC impose des pénalités et des intérêts sur les paiements en retard de manière équitable.

[0 -10]

99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

3.B. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous en accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants liés au soutien et aux ressources que l’ARC offre aux Canadiens lorsqu’ils ont une question concernant leur déclaration de revenus ou leur cotisation? (LIRE CETTE PARTIE, SEULEMENT AU BESOIN : Veuillez utiliser une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait en désaccord et où « 10 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait d’accord). LISTE ALÉATOIRE

• L’ARC offre un soutien et des ressources qui sont faciles à comprendre.
• Il est facile d’accéder au soutien et aux ressources qui sont offerts par l’ARC.
• L’ARC vous offre du soutien et des ressources précis et exacts.

[0 -10]

99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

3.C. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous en accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants liés aux efforts déployés par l’ARC pour s’assurer que les contribuables se conforment aux directives? (LIRE CETTE PARTIE, SEULEMENT AU BESOIN : Veuillez utiliser une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait en désaccord et où « 10 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait d’accord). LISTE ALÉATOIRE

• La manière dont l’ARC choisit les personnes devant faire l’objet d’une vérification est équitable.
• L’ARC fournit des explications adéquates aux Canadiens concernant les sommes recueillies par l’intermédiaire des vérifications de l’ARC.
• Les demandes de l’ARC au sujet de précisions ou de documents à l’appui pendant l’évaluation de votre déclaration de revenus sont équitables.
• Si vous avez omis de réclamer certains crédits d’impôt, vous avez confiance que l’ARC vous en fera part lors de l’évaluation de votre déclaration de revenus. [AU BESOIN : Un crédit est une occasion pour vous de réduire l’impôt que vous devez.]
• Si vous avez omis certains renseignements dans votre déclaration de revenus et que vous devez plus d’argent que prévu à l’ARC, vous avez confiance que l’ARC vous en fera part lors de l’évaluation de votre déclaration de revenus.

[0 -10]

99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

4. Veuillez m’arrêter à la catégorie qui convient le mieux à votre statut d’emploi courant? LIRE LA LISTE — UN CHOIX DE RÉPONSE SEULEMENT/p>

• Employé à temps plein, c’est-à-dire que vous travaillez 35 heures ou plus par semaine? 1
• Employé à temps partiel, c’est-à-dire que vous travaillez moins de 35 heures par semaine? 2
• Vous êtes un travailleur autonome? 3
• Sans emploi, mais à la recherche d’un emploi? 4
• Vous êtes étudiant aux études à temps plein? 5
• À la retraite? 6
• Absent du marché du travail? [Au foyer à temps plein, sans emploi et n’en recherchant pas] 7
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Autre : _______ [NE PAS PRÉCISER] 77
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Refuse de répondre 99

5. Au cours de la dernière année, avez-vous eu l’une ou l’autre des interactions suivantes avec l’ARC : LIRE LA LISTE – ACCEPTER TOUTES LES RÉPONSES QUI S’APPLIQUENT

• 01 – Vous avez recherché des renseignements généraux.
• 02 – Vous avez recherché des précisions sur des renseignements qui vous ont été envoyés par l’ARC.
• 03 – Vous avez fait un paiement sur l’impôt dû.
• 04 – Vous avez tenté de résoudre un différend que vous avez eu avec l’ARC.
• 05 – Vous avez recherché des renseignements sur la production de votre déclaration de revenus.
• 06 – Vous avez fait l’objet d’une vérification officielle, ce que diffère des précisions ou des documents à l’appui requis pour évaluer votre déclaration de revenus.
• 07 – L’ARC a communiqué avec vous pour obtenir des précisions ou des documents à l’appui lors du processus d’évaluation de votre déclaration de revenus, sans pour autant que vous fassiez l’objet d’une vérification.
• 08 – [LIRE SEULEMENT SI LE CONTRIBUABLE S’EST DÉCLARÉ TRAVAILLEUR AUTONOME À LA QUESTION PRÉCÉDENTE] L’ARC a communiqué avec vous, en tant que travailleur autonome, et vous a offert de l’aide au moyen de son Initiative relative aux agents de liaison.
  RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE
• 98 – Aucune de ces réponses
• 99 – NE SAIT PAS / REFUSE DE RÉPONDRE

6. Au cours de la dernière année, avez-vous utilisé l’un ou l’autre des outils suivants ou bien, y avez-vous eu accès : LIRE LA LISTE – ACCEPTER TOUTES LES RÉPONSES QUI S’APPLIQUENT

• 01 – Site Web de l’ARC.
• 02 – Ligne d’information sans frais de l’ARC.
• 03 – Mon dossier de l’ARC (AU BESOIN : Il s’agit d’une fonction en ligne protégée par un mot de passe sur le site Web de l’ARC où vous pouvez faire le suivi de votre remboursement, visualiser ou modifier votre déclaration de revenus, vérifier vos prestations et vos crédits, afficher votre plafond de cotisation à un REER, configurer le dépôt direct et recevoir du courrier en ligne, entre autres).
• 04 – Application mobile de l’ARC.
• 05 – Vous avez visité un bureau de Service Canada pour discuter de votre déclaration de revenus.
  RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE
• 98 – Aucune de ces réponses
• 99 – Ne sait pas/refuse de répondre

7. Lorsque vous faites affaire avec une personne de l’ARC par téléphone, à quelle fréquence diriez-vous que…LISTE ALÉATOIRE Est-ce que ce serait… [LIRE L’ÉCHELLE] SI LE RÉPONDANT N’A JAMAIS APPELÉ L’ARC OU NE SE SOUVIENT PAS D’AVOIR APPELÉ L’ARC, SÉLECTIONNER LE CODE 06

DIRECTIVES SUR LA PROGRAMMATION : Si le répondant n’a jamais appelé l’ARC ou ne se souvient pas de la dernière fois qu’il l’a appelée, l’intervieweur doit sélectionner le code 06 pour le premier énoncé coché, puis passer à la question 8

• a) Les agents sont respectueux.
• b) Les agents vous fournissent des renseignements exacts.
• c) Le temps d’attente sur la ligne est acceptable avant de parler à un agent.
• d) Les agents répondent entièrement à toutes vos questions.
• e) Les agents se soucient de la situation fiscale dans laquelle vous vous trouvez.

RÉPÉTER L’ÉCHELLE SEULEMENT AU BESOIN

• 01 – Toujours
• 02 – Souvent
• 03 – Parfois
• 04 – Rarement
• 05 – Jamais
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] 06 – Je n’ai jamais téléphoné à l’ARC / Cela fait trop longtemps que j’ai téléphoné à l’ARC
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] 99 – NE SE RAPPELLE PAS / REFUSE DE RÉPONDRE

8. [DEMANDER SI LE CONTRIBUABLE A FAIT L’OBJET D’UNE VÉRIFICATION AU COURS DE LA DERNIÈRE ANNÉE – CODE 06 À LA QUESTION 5] Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous en accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants concernant votre plus récente expérience de vérification de l’impôt sur le revenu des particuliers avec l’ARC, toujours en utilisant une échelle de 0 à 10, où « 0 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait en désaccord et où « 10 » signifie que vous êtes tout à fait d’accord. NE PAS PRÉSENTER LA LISTE DE MANIÈRE ALÉATOIRE

• a) Le processus de vérification était équitable.
• b) L’ARC ou le vérificateur vous a clairement expliqué le processus de vérification.
• c) On vous a donné suffisamment de temps et de conseils pour répondre aux exigences de la vérification.
• d) À la fin de la vérification, vous avez senti que le vérificateur avait compris votre situation.
• e) Le vérificateur a clairement expliqué les résultats de la vérification.
• f) Le vérificateur a fait preuve de professionnalisme.
• g) Le vérificateur a fait preuve de respect.
• h) Le vérificateur connaît bien le sujet.
• i) Le vérificateur se souciait de la situation fiscale dans laquelle vous vous trouviez.
• j) Le résultat de la vérification était équitable.

[0 -10]

99 Ne sait pas/ refuse

9. Parmi les réponses suivantes, laquelle correspond le mieux à la façon dont votre déclaration de revenus a été préparée en 2015? LIRE LA LISTE – UN CHOIX DE RÉPONSE SEULEMENT

• 01 – Vous l’avez préparée vous-même.
• 02 – Vous l’avez préparée avec l’aide d’un membre de votre famille ou d’un ami.
• 03 – Elle a été préparée par un bénévole faisant partie du Programme communautaire des bénévoles en matière d’impôt.
• 04 – Elle a été préparée par un comptable ou par une entreprise de préparation de déclarations de revenus comme H&R Block.
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] 05 – Je n’ai pas soumis de déclaration de revenus l’année dernière.
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] 99 – NE SE RAPPELLE PAS / REFUSE DE RÉPONDRE

[SI LA DÉCLARATION A ÉTÉ PRÉPARÉE PAR LE CONTRIBUABLE OU AVEC L’AIDE D’UN MEMBRE DE LA FAMILLE, D’UN AMI, OU D’UN BÉNÉVOLE, POSER LA QUESTION SUIVANTE – SI LE CONTRIBUABLE A DIT AVOIR UTILISÉ LES SERVICES D’UN COMPTABLE OU D’UNE ENTREPRISE DE PRÉPARATION DE DÉCLARATIONS DE REVENUS, ENREGISTREZ-LE À TITRE DE DÉCLARANT PAR VOIE ÉLECTRONIQUE ET SAUTEZ LA QUESTION SUIVANTE]

10. De quelle façon avez-vous soumis votre déclaration de revenus l’année dernière? Était-ce sur papier ou par voie électronique en utilisant Internet (au besoin, préciser : au moyen d’IMPÔTNET)? RÉPÉTER LA LISTE AU BESOIN – UN CHOIX DE RÉPONSE SEULEMENT

• 01 - Sur papier
• 02 – Par voie électronique / par Internet (IMPÔTNET)
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] 99 – NE SE RAPPELLE PAS / REFUSE DE RÉPONDRE

Données démographiques

Pour terminer, j’aurais quelques questions démographiques à vous poser, qui seront utilisées pour nous aider à analyser les résultats du sondage.

11. En quelle année êtes-vous né(e)? [Indiquez l’année – XXXX]

[SI LE CONTRIBUABLE PRÉFÈRE NE PAS FOURNIR UNE ANNÉE DE NAISSANCE PRÉCISE, DEMANDER :]

Seriez-vous disposé à me dire à quelle catégorie d’âge vous appartenez?

• De 18 à 34 ans 1
• De 35 à 49 ans 2
• De 50 à 54 ans 3
• De 55 à 64 ans 4
• OU 65 ans et plus 5
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Refuse de répondre 99

12. Quel est le niveau de scolarité le plus élevé que vous ayez atteint? LIRE LA LISTE

• 8e année ou moins 1
• Études secondaires non terminées 2
• Diplôme d’études secondaires ou équivalent 3
• Apprentissage enregistré ou autre certificat ou diplôme d’une école de métiers 4
• Collège, CEGEP, ou certificat ou diplôme non universitaire 5
• Certificat universitaire ou diplôme inférieur au baccalauréat 6
• Baccalauréat 7
• Certificat universitaire supérieure au baccalauréat 8
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Préfère ne pas répondre 99

13. Quelle langue parlez-vous le plus souvent à la maison? LIRE LA LISTE – ACCEPTER TOUTES LES RÉPONSES QUI S’APPLIQUENT

• Anglais 1
• Français 2
• Autre (spécifiez) 77
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Ne sait pas / Refuse de répondre 99

14. Laquelle des catégories suivantes décrit le mieux le revenu annuel total de votre ménage, c’est-à-dire le revenu total combiné de tous les membres de votre famille, avant impôts? LIRE LA LISTE – UN CHOIX DE RÉPONSE SEULEMENT

• Moins de 20 000 $ 1
• De 20 000 $ à moins de 40 000 $ 2
• De 40 000 $ à moins de 60 000 $ 3
• De 60 000 $ à moins de 80 000 $ 4
• De 80 000 $ à moins de 100 000 $ 5
• De 100 000 $ à moins de 150 000 $ 6
• 150 000 $ et plus 7
• [NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Refuse de répondre 99

15. Pouvez-vous me fournir les trois premiers caractères de votre code postal?

__ __ __ [FORMAT A1A]
[NE PAS LIRE CETTE PARTIE] Refuse de répondre 99

16. Sexe [Ne pas poser la question, se fonder sur les observations de l’intervieweur]

Je n’ai plus d’autres questions à vous poser – merci beaucoup pour votre temps et bonne journée!