Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency
Supplier name: Sage Research Corporation
Contract Number: # 46558-195413/001/CY
Contract value: $70,886.03 (including HST)
Award date: December 24, 2018
Delivery date: June 2019
Registration number: POR 097-18
For more information on this report, please email media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca.
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
2018-2019 CRA Leads Program Qualitative Research
Final Report
Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency by Sage Research Corporation
June 2019
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) commissioned Sage Research Corporation to conduct a qualitative public opinion research study on awareness and perceptions of the CRA's Leads Program and to test various communication materials related to reporting leads on suspected cases of domestic tax cheating to the CRA. The results were used to help the Leads Program continue to strategize toward improving the quality of the leads it receives and improving communications with taxpayers. Eight focus groups were conducted between February 12 and 21, 2019, with two groups in each of Moncton, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The groups varied in household income, and the likelihood that they would report a person suspected of tax cheating. This publication reports on the findings of this public opinion research study.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre: Recherche qualitative 2018-2019 sur le Programme des indices de l'ARC.
Permission to Reproduce
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency at: media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca
Catalogue Number:
Rv4-133/2019E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-31872-1
Related Publication (Registration Number: POR 097-18):
Catalogue number Rv4-133/2019F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN: 978-0-660-31873-8
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, 2019
Table of contents
The Leads Program provides an opportunity for members of the public to come forward and anonymously report suspected cases of non-compliance with federal tax laws. It coordinates and reviews all domestic leads received to assist the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in identifying taxpayers who are not complying with their tax obligations. A lead is information provided to the CRA by the public that indicates suspected tax cheating.
The Program relies on the public to provide the CRA with meaningful, actionable leads. As such, the quality of the leads received is linked to program success. The Leads Program is taking steps to improve the quality of the leads it receives. Communications activities have been undertaken to provide greater clarity to Canadians on the type of information needed when submitting a lead. Furthermore, as recommended by the Minister’s Underground Economy Advisory Committee, the CRA has made improvements to the Leads Program external web page.
The purpose of this research was to obtain information from the general public that will help the Leads Program continue to strategize toward improving the quality of the leads it receives and improving communications with taxpayers.
The research objectives included:
In support of the above objectives, the communication effectiveness of the following materials was explored in the focus groups:
Eight focus groups were conducted between February 12 and 21, 2019, with two groups in each of Moncton, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The groups varied in household income, and the likelihood that they would report a person suspected of tax cheating. Two focus groups were conducted with each of the following target groups: low/medium income – less likely to report, higher income – less likely to report, low/medium income – more likely to report, and higher income – more likely to report.
This research was qualitative in nature, not quantitative. As such, the results provide an indication of participants’ views about the topics explored, but cannot be statistically generalized to the full population. Qualitative research does, however, produce a richness and depth of response not readily available through other methods of research. It is the insight and direction provided by qualitative research that makes it an appropriate tool for exploring participants’ opinions and their reactions to the communication materials.
The majority of participants across all target groups said they had little or no awareness of the CRA’s efforts to address domestic tax cheating. Of the minority of participants with an impression of the CRA’s efforts with respect to domestic tax cheating, the most common impression was that the CRA focusses more on “the little guy” than on wealthy individuals and large businesses.
Awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public: The majority of participants in all target groups said they were not specifically aware that the CRA provides a way for members of the public to report a case of suspected domestic tax cheating to the CRA. Among the minority who said they were aware the CRA accepts leads, this mostly consisted of a vague level of awareness, with no specific knowledge of the program or how one might report a lead.
Awareness of the Leads Program by name: None of the participants were aware of the name “Leads Program” (“Programme des indices”, in French) on either an unaided or aided basis.
Participants were asked reasons why a person might be more likely to report a case of suspected domestic tax cheating, and why a person might be less likely to report this. The results were similar across all target groups.
More likely to report: Most of the reasons participants mentioned why a person might be more likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating fell into two categories: a personal connection to the tax cheater, or a principled objection to the tax cheating. Both categories of reasons were widely mentioned.
Less likely to report: The low level of awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public about suspected domestic cheating is one important reason why a person might be less likely to report a tip. Beyond this, the four most commonly mentioned reasons why a person might be less likely to report a case of suspected domestic tax cheating were:
Other reasons mentioned by some participants for being less likely to report suspected domestic tax cheating included:
Participants were shown five messages in the context of the statement, “Here are some different concepts for messages to encourage someone who knows of a suspected case of tax cheating by a person or business to report it to the CRA.” For ease of reference, the concepts were assigned letter names. The results were similar across the different target groups.
Strongest concept: Concept S
S: Tax cheating takes away from funding for crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on. It may not always be easy, but by reporting tax cheating to the CRA, you’re helping to make sure the tax system is fair to everyone.
Concept S was strongest of the five concepts, with almost all categorizing it as “meaningful and motivating”, and with a large majority ranking it as first or second on this dimension. The key perceived element of Concept S that drove the widespread positive reaction was the reference to “crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on.” This presents a concrete and relatable benefit associated with reporting tax cheating. It was often commented that referring to schools and hospitals also adds a positive emotional dimension to the concept, because of the importance of these institutions in most people’s lives.
Other positive elements included the reference to fairness, and the apparent empathy in acknowledging that “it may not always be easy” to report a lead to the CRA. There were no notable negative reactions to the concept.
Next strongest concept: Concept F
F: The Government of Canada is committed to making the tax system fair for all. All taxpayers have to pay their fair share of taxes and abide by Canadian law. Do you suspect someone or a business of tax cheating? Report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.
Concept F was the next strongest concept after Concept S. About three-quarters categorized it as “meaningful and motivating”, and about half ranked it first or second. The single most important perceived positive element of F was the last sentence, “Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.” This directly addresses a barrier to reporting a tip that was important to many participants. This led some participants to suggest adding this to Concept S, to make that concept even stronger.
The main issue quite a few participants had with Concept F was the language: it was seen as written in a dry, “government” style that was neither interesting or emotionally engaging – particularly in comparison to Concept S.
Intermediate concepts: Concepts K and R
K: A few dollars of unreported income may not seem like a big deal, but collectively they amount to billions of dollars lost that are needed to fund public services in your community. Be part of the solution! Report suspected tax cheating.
R: Someone who uses government services but doesn’t pay taxes is putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves. That just isn’t right. Report suspected tax cheating to us.
For each of these two concepts, a bit over half categorized each as “meaningful and motivating”, a bit less than one-third ranked each as first or second.
Concept K: Among those who liked Concept K, the main positive elements were:
The main issue that some participants had with Concept K was the reference to “a few dollars of unreported income.” As noted earlier, many participants said they would not report suspected tax fraud to the CRA if the dollar magnitude was perceived to be small. This also led some to perceive Concept K as the CRA focusing investigation of tax cheating on “the little guy.”
Concept R: Participants were basically divided over the tone of the concept, as conveyed by the phrase, “putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves.” Some found this strong statement of personal impact to be motivating. Some other participants perceived the tone of Concept R to be too dramatic, or “over the top” as one participant put it.
Weakest concept: Concept B
B: Some people think that if they don’t declare a small amount of income, if they operate in cash, or if they don’t keep records, the CRA won’t find out. That’s false. The CRA has many tools and partners to detect tax cheating. Do your part and report it!
Concept B was perceived negatively by most participants. There were several aspects of Concept B that many participants did not like:
Participants reviewed the first three pages from the CRA website, Report a lead on suspected tax cheating in Canada: Overview, What you need to know, and Information to include.
A general observation is that overall participants perceived the material on the three web pages to be clearly written and easy to understand. There were issues with particular elements on some of the pages, but these were usually more about whether or not they agreed with the content.
Perceived impact of no feedback
The Overview page states:
However, you will not receive feedback or updates after you submit a lead. This is because the CRA cannot disclose information about other taxpayers.
Most participants agreed that for privacy reasons the CRA should not disclose personal information about the target of the lead. That said, some said that this lack of “feedback or updates” would cause some people to be less likely to report a suspected case of tax cheating.
Participants made various suggestions about what the CRA could do to help offset the discouraging impact of “no feedback.” A suggestion that many supported was to give aggregate statistical information on the value of the Leads Program. General information of this sort would not violate anybody’s privacy. The idea is that it would help motivate people to report, and to feel good about having gone through the effort to report, to know that the Leads Program is effective. It was further suggested that this information be not only in an acknowledgement to a lead submission, but also on the Overview web page. Putting it on the web page could help offset the potential negative impact of the “no feedback or updates” text on likelihood of going ahead and submitting a lead.
Reactions to no monetary rewards
The Overview web page states, “Furthermore, the CRA does not give monetary rewards for information about suspected tax cheating under this program.” While some participants said a monetary reward should be given in order to motivate people to submit leads, a large majority agreed with the current CRA policy of not giving monetary rewards for cases of domestic tax cheating. Participants who said there should be no monetary rewards agreed that offering a monetary rewards would increase the number of leads submitted to the CRA. However, they voiced two types of objections to offering rewards:
Privacy section
Many participants said it is very important that the person submitting a lead be anonymous in the sense that the target never learn the identity of the person. The Privacy section of this web page addresses that topic in the subsection titled You will remain anonymous. This subsection can be divided into a part that participants liked because it is perceived to promise anonymity, and a part that many participants did not like because they interpreted it as undermining the promise of anonymity:
| Participants liked this part | You will remain anonymous When you report suspected tax cheating (by submitting a lead), you will not be asked to disclose personal information about yourself. The protection of personal information is important, and the CRA is committed to protecting your identity. |
| Participants did not like this part | This means that the CRA will do all it can, under the law, to protect your identity along with any information that suggests you submitted a lead. Accordingly, if asked to disclose that information under a formal Access to Information Act request or Privacy Act request, the CRA will claim an exemption from such disclosure under subparagraphs 16(1)(c)(ii) of the Access to Information Act and 22(1)(b)(ii) of the Privacy Act. |
There were two perceived problems with the latter part that undermined the perceived simple and straightforward promise of anonymity in the first part:
Process section
Process
When the CRA receives a lead (it must be in English or French), it will take these steps:
Many participants commented that this section is clearly written and provides good information. A key perceived positive take-away is the impression that the CRA will take action – which can help to motivate someone to proceed to submit their lead.
Participants were asked specifically about the third bullet point, which refers to “take the appropriate action.” Most were comfortable with the language, and some commented that they interpreted “appropriate action” to mean that the CRA could take actions of varying severity depending on the specifics of the case. This was perceived to be a good thing, and can help someone feel better about submitting a lead. They do not need to feel worried or guilty that the person they are informing on will be punished more severely than is warranted.
Participants were also shown the following text that might be added to the third bullet point:
These compliance actions range from mild to severe and may include education letters, reassessments, audits, and, when warranted, fines, penalties, or criminal prosecution. Depending on the type of intervention, it may take us some time to process the file. The ultimate goal is to bring the taxpayer back into long-term tax compliance.
Participants were divided on whether or not to add this text to the third bullet point. Some liked spelling out the idea that there is a range of actions the CRA might take – even if they had already inferred that from “appropriate action”, while others felt it was unnecessary.
A suggestion made in some focus groups was to leave the text of the third bullet as is, but make “appropriate action” a hyperlink to the above explanation. Many participants agreed with this suggestion, because it clearly indicates that more information is available on the meaning of “appropriate action” for those who want it, but does not force it on those who do not feel a need to read more.
The Information to include web page contains four section: Key identifiers, Facts, Supporting documents, and Examples of complete and incomplete leads. The focus group discussion concentrated on the last section.
Most participants liked the concept of providing an example of an incomplete versus a more complete lead. This was perceived to make what the CRA is expecting more concrete, and to illustrate what would not be adequate. Participants felt it would help reduce the number of inadequate leads submitted. Some participants understood from text on the website that a person can submit a somewhat less than complete lead even if they do not have all the information required for a complete lead.
Although the concept of providing an example of incomplete and a complete lead was viewed as helpful, quite a few participants said the complete lead could discourage people from proceeding to submit their lead. The issue is that the complete lead examples contain a lot of detail that participants felt would often not be available to a person submitting a lead. A person focusing on the complete lead, and comparing its level of detail to the level of detail in their lead may conclude that they do not have enough information to satisfy the CRA or to justify submitting the lead.
Participants were directed to look at the first two sentences on the Information to Include page (so, prior to the Key identifiers, Facts and Supporting documents sections). These sentences state: “You may not have all the information suggested below. But the more details you give, the easier it is for the CRA to level the playing field for all Canadians.” This text was perceived as clearly indicating that it is acceptable and useful to the CRA for a person to submit a less than complete lead. The problem is some said they forgot about this by the time they reached the section with the incomplete and complete leads. Some suggested this needs to be restated in this section.
Some participants suggested that to reduce the potentially discouraging impact of the complete lead, there should also be an example of some sort of intermediate lead that would not be complete, yet would contain enough information to be useful to the CRA. This would concretely communicate that leads do not need to be complete. Several participants suggested a variation on this, which would be a lead with “the minimum information the CRA needs.”
The research identified various communication themes that have potential to increase willingness to report suspected domestic tax cheating.
A basic and necessary communication objective is to create awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public about suspected domestic tax cheating. Awareness of this fact is relatively low.
Beyond this, the more important communication themes would be:
Contract value: $70,886.03 including HST
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Sage Research Corporation 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. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, and standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed: Rick Robson
Vice-President
Sage Research Corporation
The majority of participants across all target groups said they had little or no awareness of the CRA’s efforts to address domestic tax cheating.
Some commented that they would not expect people they know to volunteer that they had been caught for tax cheating by the CRA, so their knowledge of what the CRA might be doing would be based on stories in the news. The impression was that such stories are not common.
“Potentially there's lots happening and we're just not hearing about it. So it could be just lack of visibility to what they're actually doing.”
Of the minority of participants with an impression of the CRA’s efforts with respect to domestic tax cheating, the most common impression was that the CRA focusses more on “the little guy” than on wealthy individuals and large businesses. Less wealthy individuals and small business are perceived not to have the resources of wealthier individuals or larger businesses to engage in sophisticated tax planning or to deal with the CRA in a dispute.
Awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public: The majority of participants in all target groups said they were not specifically aware that the CRA provides a way for members of the public to report a case of suspected domestic tax cheating to the CRA. Several commented they assumed this would be possible, but had not actually heard of a specific program. Awareness appeared to be lower in Montreal than in the other cities: in Montreal none of the participants were specifically aware the CRA accepts leads, while in the other cities somewhat over half were not aware.
Among the minority who said they were aware the CRA accepts leads, this mostly consisted of a vague level of awareness, with no specific knowledge of the program or how one might report a tip.
In two of the focus groups, participants were asked what search terms they might use if they were interested in reporting a suspected case of tax cheating to the CRA. The types of phrases mentioned in the context of the CRA included:
Unaided awareness: None of the participants had unaided awareness of the name of the program.
Aided awareness: When told that the name of the CRA program is the Leads Program (Programme des indices, in French), none of the participants said they had heard of the program.
Impressions of the Name: “Leads Program”, “Programme des indices”
Participants were asked whether the name of the program in the context of the CRA sounded like it would be a way for people to report suspected tax cheating. Most said this interpretation is not what would easily come to mind.
A small number of participants said they think of “leads” as the term is used, for example, in police investigations, and in this context they said the “Leads Program” name suggested it is a program for reporting tips on tax cheating.
However, most said the name either did not suggest anything in particular, or it suggested something more “positive.” Types of positive associations mentioned included:
Several suggested “leads” is too open to diverse interpretations to be a good, recognizable name for the program.
For Montreal participants, the French program name, Programme des indices, did not evoke associations to tax cheating. Some said that instead the word “indice” makes them think of an index of some sort – e.g. a statistical index or stock market index.
Participants were briefly asked what might be more descriptive than “leads” in a name for the program. Suggestion included:
Participants were asked to discuss the following pair of questions:
Among people who know that you can report suspected cases of domestic tax cheating to the CRA, some are likely to report suspected tax cheating, while some are not likely to do this.
To inform this discussion, participants were also shown a list of some examples of different types of tax cheating to help convey the meaning of “tax cheating.” The examples listed included (participants were told this is not a complete list):
Note that the above question posed in the focus groups deliberately stated as a premise a person who knows one can report suspected cases of tax cheating to the CRA. This was done because it was assumed this could be a barrier, and the goal was to focus the discussion on other factors that might come into play. Indeed, as described earlier, awareness that one can report leads to the CRA was relatively low, and none of the participants were aware of the Leads Program specifically. So, lack of awareness is certainly an important factor that contributes to lower likelihood of reporting leads about suspected tax cheating to the CRA: relatively low awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public, low awareness of how one would report a tip, and low awareness of the Leads Program.
Overall, the results were similar across the different target groups, so the discussion below does not make any distinctions by target group.
Most of the reasons participants mentioned why a person might be more likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating fell into two categories, with both categories being widely mentioned:
Personal Connection
There were three main types of negative personal connections that could motivate a person to report a case of suspected tax cheating, with the first two being quite widely mentioned:
It’s not fair because, you know, one person might be making more money but they’re not claiming their taxes. It’s just not fair. You might not be making as much money but you still owe taxes and then you know, you might feel bitter and you report it.
When you work hard and you pay your taxes and you see somebody else that’s not paying their taxes and living an easy life because of it, it makes you upset because that’s not fair, especially if they’re really flaunting it.
Principled Objections to Tax Cheating
A widely mentioned principled objection to tax cheating that might motivate someone to report suspected tax cheating to the CRA was the idea of “fairness.” The basic idea is that “I pay my fair share in taxes and so should everyone else.”
I think for a lot of people it's probably like, rules are rules for a reason and fairness is a thing, so if I'm reporting everything honestly and paying all of my taxes then everybody else should too. So I think it’s a question of fairness.
It’s about general fairness. I am paying my taxes; everybody else should pay their fair share of taxes, right?
I just want people to pay their fair share of taxes. Like if I have to pay my fair share, I just want them to pay their fair share also.
Another principle quite widely mentioned was the idea that taxes pay for important programs and services, and tax cheating means less money to fund these program and services. Several participants also tied this to a more local impact, in the sense of less money for programs and services in their community.
In the next section, Reactions to Messages, it will be seen that both of the above two principles – fairness, and taxes pay for programs/services – were important elements contributing to more positive reactions to messages.
Some participants said that a person who in general believes strongly that laws should be obeyed (not just tax laws) would be more likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA.
Other Factors
Dollar magnitude is large: The impact of the perceived magnitude of the tax cheating mostly came up in discussion of reasons for being less likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating: quite a few participants said they would be less likely to report the cheating if the dollar amount was small. The implication is that likelihood of reporting is greater when large dollar amounts are involved.
Belief that the CRA will act on the lead: Again, this mostly came up in the discussion of reasons for being less likely to report a lead: if a person does not believe the CRA will follow up on a tip, they will be less likely to report it. The implication is that a belief that the CRA acts on leads is a precondition to someone being willing to report a lead.
Monetary incentive: Several participants said a person would be more likely to report a lead if they received a monetary reward for doing so. The issue of a monetary incentive was discussed in a later section of focus groups, and the results are summarized in the section, CRA Website Page - Overview. It will be seen in that section that most participants did not feel that the Leads Program should offer a monetary incentive or reward, which is probably why only several participants mentioned it in the discussion of factors that would increase likelihood of reporting a lead.
Legal obligation to report: A few participants said a person may be in a position where they have a “legal” obligation to report suspected tax cheating. These participants cited accountants as an example of someone they believed has a “legal” obligation. We don’t know if in this instance there is actually a legal obligation, or if it is more a matter of professional ethics.
The four most commonly mentioned reasons across all target groups for being less likely to report a suspected case of domestic tax cheating were:
Concern about Anonymity
Many participants said they would be less likely to report a tax cheater if that person was able to find out who gave the lead to the CRA. The concern is that there could be some sort of reprisal or negative repercussions.
I fear reprisals, especially if I know the person. Will they get back at me?
I would fear reporting because I fear to be identified. If I know 200% that I won’t be identified, I will be more likely to report.
The concern was that anonymity might be compromised by how the CRA handles the investigation. Some also were concerned that it may be that the nature of the situation is such that only the informer or a small number of people could have known of the cheating, meaning that the cheater might be able to figure out on their own who reported them to the CRA.
Protecting a Family Member or Friend
Quite a few participants commented that they would not inform on a family member or a friend because they do not want to get them in trouble with the CRA.
I think a lot of people would be reluctant like if you knew a friend or neighbour that was cheating on their taxes, I think a lot of people would be reluctant to call, you know, unless they have a problem with that person or they've been ripped off by the person for some reason, or by a business.
Small Dollar Magnitude
Many participants said they would not report someone if the dollar magnitude was perceived to be small. We did not attempt in the focus groups to quantify what is meant by “small”, but there were spontaneous mentions of values ranging from a “few dollars” to a few thousand dollars. There were several types of reasons mentioned for this attitude:
If you think, well, you know, it's just a few dollars then you don't really care but if you think it's significant then you may be more inclined to report.
If the amount of money is small I would probably consider my time not worth getting involved.
It’s tax money that’s paying for the CRA, right? If they’re going back to get a couple of hundred dollars or a thousand dollars, they might spend you know, lots of salaries and resources to get to that point. It’s just that the math doesn’t work out.
Compassion for the Person or Business
Quite a few participants said that they would not report on a basically honest person or small business just struggling to get by. They don’t want to cause additional problems for the person or business, and they do not begrudge them getting some extra money to help pay the bills. This perspective is also likely related to the “small dollar magnitude” factor, in that the individuals or businesses in this case are not perceived to be big time tax cheaters.
If they’re really working hard to make their living, I'm not going to report that.
There are people that literally they have no roof over their head so if they’re doing something for $60 so they can eat for a month, that’s the money they have to eat for a month. Like, you’re going to report them to the CRA?
Other Factors
The following reasons for being less likely to report suspected tax cheating were each mentioned by some participants:
For me personally it would be because I just believe in minding my own business. I know sometimes it’s not a best way but it’s kind of been drilled into me my whole life and I think a lot of people are that way – like don’t rat people out essentially.
You have the massive social taboo against tattle-telling. I would say most people would have that notion in their mind especially if it is against persons and relationships.
It depends on what kind of actual information you had. You might just be like, yeah, maybe I don't know, maybe I was wrong, I don't know the full story, maybe it's complicated, I don't know what their tax situation is. So, you might just think, I don't know enough about it to make a claim.
Maybe the CRA will take a closer look at me, because I was reporting someone else.
Are you now personally involved in this witch hunt, for lack of a better name?
Might you need to go to court?
Related to this point, several participants said a person who is cheating on their own taxes would be less likely to report someone else.
Another related point made by a few participants was that a person may see someone getting away with a particular type of tax cheating and decide to do it as well since that person seems to be getting away with it.
Related to this point, some participants said one would not report a suspected tax cheat if one is benefitting from the tax cheating. The type of example given was an arrangement to pay a vendor a lower amount in cash. The vendor may be the tax cheat if they charge a lower cash price due to not reporting the income, but the person paying the lower price – who is not cheating – nonetheless benefits.
They don’t bother to report because they don’t think anything is actually going to be done.
Small numbers of participants mentioned the following reasons why someone might be less likely to report suspected tax cheating:
People less likely to report might not believe the CRA carries out due process, meaning you don’t want to report someone for $5,000.00 and then find out they lost their job, they maybe lost their husband or wife because of this whole ordeal they caused.
Participants were shown five messages in the context of the statement, “Here are some different concepts for messages to encourage someone who knows of a suspected case of tax cheating by a person or business to report it to the CRA.” Before discussing the concepts they were asked to complete a questionnaire with two questions:
The following are the five message concepts. In the focus groups, each was assigned a letter for ease of reference, and the same letters are used in the report for this purpose.
S: Tax cheating takes away from funding for crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on. It may not always be easy, but by reporting tax cheating to the CRA, you’re helping to make sure the tax system is fair to everyone.
F: The Government of Canada is committed to making the tax system fair for all. All taxpayers have to pay their fair share of taxes and abide by Canadian law. Do you suspect someone or a business of tax cheating? Report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.
K: A few dollars of unreported income may not seem like a big deal, but collectively they amount to billions of dollars lost that are needed to fund public services in your community. Be part of the solution! Report suspected tax cheating.
R: Someone who uses government services but doesn’t pay taxes is putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves. That just isn’t right. Report suspected tax cheating to us.
B: Some people think that if they don’t declare a small amount of income, if they operate in cash, or if they don’t keep records, the CRA won’t find out. That’s false. The CRA has many tools and partners to detect tax cheating. Do your part and report it!
The following summarizes the ratings and rankings of the five concepts:
The results were similar for the different target groups.
Concept S
S: Tax cheating takes away from funding for crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on. It may not always be easy, but by reporting tax cheating to the CRA, you’re helping to make sure the tax system is fair to everyone.
The key perceived element of Concept S that drove the widespread positive reaction was the reference to “crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on.” This presents a concrete and relatable benefit associated with reporting tax cheating. It was often commented that referring to schools and hospitals also adds a positive emotional dimension to the concept, because of the importance of these institutions in most people’s lives. It was credible to participants to describe these as “crucial services.”
S I think gets to the core of everybody because everybody wants good health care, everybody wants good schools for their kids, right? And then, yeah, of course taxes contribute a lot to that.
S was my number one. Hospitals, schools, care for the elderly, those things for me hit home and maybe because they are important to me. So that was for sure my number one by far.
It speaks to me directly because I know I use those programs. It's not programs that only a few people use, it's everybody uses those. And somebody has got to pay for it.
It's a benefit. Everybody has to go to the hospital some time in their life. School – everybody has been to school. And other programmes are funded by the government. We have to pay our taxes in order to have that.
The concept of “fairness” was mentioned by some as an important supporting element. It is important in the sense of everyone paying their fair share for these important services. In the earlier section, Reasons for More Likely to Report a Case of Suspected Tax Cheating, many participants said “fairness” might motivate someone to report suspected tax cheating to the CRA. The basic idea there was that “I pay my fair share in taxes and so should everyone else.” We suggest, however, that the reference to fairness in Concept S may not capture this notion of “pay your fair share” as directly as it might. Concept S refers to making sure “the tax system is fair to everyone.” The matter of whether the tax system is fair to all sectors of the population is arguably a somewhat different aspect of fairness.
Some participants said they also appreciated the phrase, “it may not always be easy.” They perceived this as acknowledging that the person reporting a lead is doing something that requires effort. One participant reacted negatively to the phrase, suggesting it might discourage someone from reporting.
We understand it may not be that easy, but you can do it because the tax system is for everyone.
I agree, because you know [doing this] is probably hard. I may not want to do it, it's not worth the time, and they actually get that in, “it's not easy.”
Negative reactions to Concept S were rare. For the record, one or a few participants mentioned:
Concept F
F: The Government of Canada is committed to making the tax system fair for all. All taxpayers have to pay their fair share of taxes and abide by Canadian law. Do you suspect someone or a business of tax cheating? Report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.
Concept F was the next strongest concept after Concept S. About three-quarters categorized it as “meaningful and motivating”, and about half ranked it first or second.
The single most important perceived positive element of F was the last sentence, “Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.” In the earlier part of the focus group when participants talked about reasons why someone might be less likely to report suspected tax cheating, concerns over anonymity were mentioned by many. This sentence directly and clearly addresses that concern. Some suggested this idea should be added to Concept S.
Concept F was also viewed positively by some because of its focus on the concept of fairness.
Several liked the reference to “abide by Canadian law.” These participants liked this because the phrase conveys that there is a legal rationale for reporting a tax cheater, and it’s not just about “snitching” on someone.
The law is evoked a couple of times in this one piece, right, it seems like there's a legal framework to this rather than come and tell us what you know about your neighbour.
The main issue quite a few participants had with Concept F was the language: it was seen as written in a dry, “government” style that was neither interesting nor emotionally engaging – particularly in comparison to Concept S. Unlike S, it does not mention services such as hospitals and schools that many people use, and therefore has less of a personal impact.
It’s the government approved version. I kind of wanted to roll my eyes when I read it.
Government legal jargon.
Okay Government of Canada, Canadian law, I acknowledge it's important but the whole aspect of fairness didn't resonate quite as strongly because it was less personal to me. I think that's why I didn't love it.
F, if you read this is straight out of a book, it’s like, yeah, it totally makes sense. But it doesn’t do anything for the majority of people that are reading it. It’s not motivating.
Concept K
K: A few dollars of unreported income may not seem like a big deal, but collectively they amount to billions of dollars lost that are needed to fund public services in your community. Be part of the solution! Report suspected tax cheating.
A bit over half of the participants categorized Concept K as “meaningful and motivating”, and a bit less than one-third ranked it as first or second
Among the participants who liked Concept K, perceived positive elements included:
The main issue that some participants had with Concept K was the reference to “a few dollars of unreported income.” As noted in the earlier section, Reasons for Less Likely to Report a Case of Suspected Tax Cheating, many participants said they would not report suspected tax fraud to the CRA if the dollar magnitude was perceived to be small. Concept K was perceived as focusing on cases of tax cheating involving a small dollar magnitude.
Because of the perceived focus on small dollar magnitudes, some perceived Concept K as the CRA focusing investigation of tax cheating on “the little guy” rather than on wealthy individuals or large businesses. This was felt to be inappropriate and unfair.
I'm looking at that and thinking, a few dollars unreported, and I'm thinking, well again you are going back to the little guy again, you are picking on the little guy again.
As someone listening to that message, I would be thinking, yes they could come after the little guy but there's bigger fish to fry.
Several participants said they did not find credible the statement that “a few dollars of unreported income” could add up to “billions of dollars.”
I didn't feel like that even seems plausible. Like, to me, if you say a few dollars, I'm thinking, at least for me a few dollars is just like pocket change so how in Canada is that going to add up to billions? It's going to take a long time.
Concept R
R: Someone who uses government services but doesn’t pay taxes is putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves. That just isn’t right. Report suspected tax cheating to us.
A bit over half of the participants categorized Concept R as “meaningful and motivating”, and a bit less than one-third ranked it as first or second.
Participants were basically divided over the tone of the concept, as conveyed by the phrase, “putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves.” Some found this strong statement of personal impact to be motivating.
It makes me more want to report. I don't want people stealing from me, so it made it feel like, oh they are cheating the system, they are actually stealing money from me, that's tangible.
I personally liked it because it kind of brings you into the situation and kind of makes you feel like a victim – kind of makes you personally being attacked by someone else evading taxes.
Some other participants perceived the tone of Concept R to be too dramatic, or “over the top” as one participant put it. A few disliked it because they interpreted it as pitting people against each other.
With R they’re trying to make you angry. They’re trying to make you angry and bitter at your neighbour.
Another issue several participants had with Concept R is that the first sentence, with its reference to “someone who uses government services”, can be interpreted as focusing on lower income people, such as people receiving welfare. Interpreted this way, the concept was perceived to inappropriately focus on “the little guy.”
Concept B
B: Some people think that if they don’t declare a small amount of income, if they operate in cash, or if they don’t keep records, the CRA won’t find out. That’s false. The CRA has many tools and partners to detect tax cheating. Do your part and report it!
Concept B was perceived negatively by most participants. Only a small number perceived positive aspects to the concept.
The small number who liked it felt the sharp tone of the ad will be motivating. That said, it was also the case that it was seen more as directed at the person who is cheating, and trying to “scare” them into tax compliance. It was not really perceived as giving a good reason to report suspected tax cheating by someone else.
There were several aspects of Concept B that many participants did not like:
The type of people that this made me think of are people who do the odd job on the weekend. Like, mind your own business CRA. That's what I feel about B.
“Small amount of income” – you’re being petty here.
It says the CRA is good enough with the tools and partners to detect it, so why should we get involved?
It’s very contradictory and it’s very demotivating if the CRA has all these tools to detect these things.
Concept B had that real Big Brother sound to it. It’s just like, wherever you are, we are watching you too. Well, good for you, you don’t need the Tip Line!
Participants reviewed the first three pages from the CRA website, Report a lead on suspected tax cheating in Canada. The three pages were: Overview, What you need to know, and Information to include. After reviewing each page, participants were asked targeted questions about elements of the page of particular interest for this project, and, time permitting, were asked for comments on other elements. Full versions of each web page can be found in the Appendix.
A general observation is that overall participants perceived the material on the three Web pages to be clearly written and easy to understand. There were issues with particular elements on some of the pages, as discussed below, but these were usually more about the substance of what was said rather than the language used.
On the Overview, two elements of particular interest were in the section, How you make a difference – the reference to “not receive feedback or updates” and “does not give monetary rewards”:
How you make a difference
The CRA uses the information in your lead to make sure the tax system is fair for all Canadians. Your lead could also boost the actions the CRA is already taking to fight tax cheating. However, you will not receive feedback or updates after you submit a lead. This is because the CRA cannot disclose information about other taxpayers. Furthermore, the CRA does not give monetary rewards for information about suspected tax cheating under this program. When you submit a lead, you are supporting your community and the programs and services we all rely on to improve quality of life in Canada.
Participants were asked for their reactions to the statement that no feedback is provided on a lead submission:
However, you will not receive feedback or updates after you submit a lead. This is because the CRA cannot disclose information about other taxpayers.
Most participants agreed that for privacy reasons the CRA should not disclose personal information about the target of the lead.
That said, some said that this lack of “feedback or updates” would cause some people to be less likely to report a suspected case of tax cheating.
I think it makes people less likely to take that action, to take that risk to stick their neck out.
I think that in the case of somebody doing it out of pettiness, a lot of people who do that want the instant gratification of knowing that they screwed you over. They’re not going to get that there so I think that would deter that type of a person from going through the process.
I think when they read that they say well what’s the point? If I’m not going to get any feedback on this, why should I bother? I’m not going to know the outcome anyway, so is it going to help or does it not help?
There were various suggestions from participants about what the CRA could do to provide at least some sort of feedback after a lead is submitted:
I respect the privacy thing but maybe at least they will give feedback that says, ‘yes, your lead was followed up on’ or whatever, that kind of thing.
Say something like thank you very much for your tip. We have looked into this and this is being looked at immediately or in the near future or something. I’ve been acknowledged that my concern is being addressed.
Say “Thank you and we’re going to look at it.”
At least say “the information was useful.”
Say “your tip helped or no it didn’t.”
They could tell us, it was very useful or relevant. Not tell us, we went and get so many millions. Was my intervention helpful?
Again, however, a few participants thought this might violate the CRA’s privacy commitment.
You want a follow-up at a general level saying that I’ve actually done something positive for the system.
I want to know I’m making a difference.
Show some stats or something – this program has recovered so much money, you know. Give people a sense that you get results or people won’t do it. And that line they put there [now] is just so bland – it doesn’t give you that sense that you get results.
With regard to the text in the Overview, “the CRA cannot disclose information about other taxpayers”, several participants suggested this should be augmented with a reference to the relevant law. The idea was to convey more strongly that this is not something CRA does arbitrarily but rather it does this because it is a legal requirement.
I think what should be in there is because the CRA cannot disclose information in accordance to Canadian Privacy Act. Not just, we just don't do it. It's not their policy, it's Canada's policy.
Because it lets the CRA off the hook as to why they can’t give the information.
However, a few participants thought this would add too much text to the web page. We also note that most participants appeared comfortable with, and agreed with, the existing text as is.
The Overview web page states, “Furthermore, the CRA does not give monetary rewards for information about suspected tax cheating under this program.”
While some participants said a monetary reward should be given in order to motivate people to submit leads, a large majority agreed with the current CRA policy of not giving monetary rewards for cases of domestic tax cheating.
Participants who said there should be no monetary rewards agreed that offering a monetary rewards would increase the number leads submitted to the CRA. However, they voiced two types of objections to offering rewards:
I think it brings out the worst in people. You’d see people that would be reporting a lot more borderline cases just because of the money.
It's going to attract all kinds of erroneous claims.
There would be huge influx of reported cases because if you take enough stabs at it eventually you’ll get something.
If you only give it to ones that are successful, then if I give a tip and I get $500, then that's giving private information about the guy that got busted to me. So that's contrary to privacy laws.
How anonymous is this if you’re giving out cash incentives? How can it be anonymous?
Some other results pertaining to not paying a monetary reward:
I don't think there should be rewards but I'm disappointed now that there aren't.
The introduction of the Overview makes a distinction between reporting domestic versus international tax cheating:
If you suspect a person, business or charity of tax cheating in Canada, report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) by submitting a lead to the Leads Program. If your information is related to Canadians cheating taxes internationally, you have to submit it under a different program, the Offshore Tax Informant Program.
Some participants did not like this requirement for a person submitting a lead to make a choice about which path to follow to report a lead. They said that the person reporting a lead about domestic tax cheating may not know or be sure whether the tax cheating also has an international component. They said there should be just one portal to submit a lead, and that it should be up to the CRA to determine if the tax cheating is domestic, international, or both.
I may not know if it's international or not. I'm already on the fence about reporting it and now I'm confused, do I click this link or this link? And it's one more thing, so you know what, I'm just not going to bother.
If the objective is to just get people to report then you should probably just build something into the actual process that can then separate [the two types of tax cheating], rather than asking people to make that choice up front.
In a lot of cases it might be international, but how would I know, right? I see what's happening locally. It's up to you with the tools you have and the expertise to find out whether it extends beyond local.
There were two sentences on the Overview page that many participants flagged as good, because these reference two important reasons why people might submit leads: fairness, and supporting programs and services. The two statements are:
The CRA uses the information in your lead to make sure the tax system is fair for all Canadians.
When you submit a lead, you are supporting your community and the programs and services we all rely on to improve quality of life in Canada.
Privacy section
Many participants said it is very important that the person submitting a lead be anonymous in the sense that the target never learn the identity of the person. The Privacy section of this web page addresses that topic in the subsection titled You will remain anonymous. This subsection can be divided into a part that participants liked because it is perceived to promise anonymity, and a part that many participants did not like because they interpreted it as undermining the promise of anonymity:
| Participants liked this part | You will remain anonymous When you report suspected tax cheating (by submitting a lead), you will not be asked to disclose personal information about yourself. The protection of personal information is important, and the CRA is committed to protecting your identity. |
| Participants did not like this part | This means that the CRA will do all it can, under the law, to protect your identity along with any information that suggests you submitted a lead. Accordingly, if asked to disclose that information under a formal Access to Information Act request or Privacy Act request, the CRA will claim an exemption from such disclosure under subparagraphs 16(1)(c)(ii) of the Access to Information Act and 22(1)(b)(ii) of the Privacy Act. |
There were two perceived problems with the latter part that undermined the perceived simple and straightforward promise of anonymity in the first part:
It’s a huge red flag. They “will do all they can” – seriously?
That means that there is a possibility that this information is going to be disclosed.
“We will do all we can”, right. That doesn’t give me a sense of guarantee there.
I liked the first part up until they said the CRA will do all it can to protect your identity, because then it seems like there’s conditions in which they won’t protect your identity.
Another issue that several participants had with the Privacy section was a perceived inconsistency: the first part says “you will not be asked to disclose personal information”, but the second part is perceived to imply that personal information is collected and that it might be disclosed.
The point that I don’t understand is it says you will not be asked to disclose personal information about yourself. Well, if you’re not going to give any personal information about yourself, then why am I worried about the Access to Information Act?
Process Section
The following is the Process section of the What you need to know web page:
Process
When the CRA receives a lead (it must be in English or French), it will take these steps:
Many participants commented that this section is clearly written and provides good information. A key perceived positive take-away is the impression that the CRA will take action – which can help to motivate someone to proceed to submit their lead.
I really like this section. I wish it was like up here in the overview. It would get me to actually say yes, somebody is going to actually look at this, they will take appropriate action.
It’s reassuring that at least someone will look at it, because a lot of things you send end up in black holes.
Participants were asked specifically about the third bullet point, which refers to “take the appropriate action.” Most were comfortable with the language, and some commented that they interpreted “appropriate action” to mean that the CRA could take actions of varying severity depending on the specifics of the case. This was perceived to be a good thing, and can help someone feel better about submitting a lead. They do not need to feel worried or guilty that the person they are informing on will be punished more severely than is warranted.
I thought it laid it out nice and simple and it had that idea, oh they're going to review it first, check it out, and even if there is, take the appropriate action, not be draconian.
The second part of that sentence, right, so it's taking the appropriate action to address the specific type of tax cheating. So something minor, oh you didn't file it here's a letter, right? Rather than someone's knocking on your door with the handcuffs.
That tells me that there’s different levels.
A relatively small number of participants felt that the meaning of “appropriate action” was vague and needed to be explained more.
After this discussion, participants were shown the following text that might be added to the third bullet point:
These compliance actions range from mild to severe and may include education letters, reassessments, audits, and, when warranted, fines, penalties, or criminal prosecution. Depending on the type of intervention, it may take us some time to process the file. The ultimate goal is to bring the taxpayer back into long-term tax compliance.
Participants were divided on whether or not to add this text to the third bullet point:
For some people maybe that would be [important for deciding] whether or not they were going to submit a lead – just how severe the punishment would be, right? Maybe you just want them to have to pay back what they haven’t paid, and ensure that they’re continuing to pay in the future rather than being, you know, imprisoned.
What's going to happen to them? Did I just completely change their life when they only did a simple little thing? Well this tells me, okay based on what they actually did, they will have different repercussions that are appropriate. Even though I already knew this, that they would be appropriate, it affirms it so it gives me peace of mind that, okay, I can sleep tonight, I have not ruined somebody's life.
A lot of people do assume extreme so it probably would be helpful for the majority of the population to know it’s a range, not just zero or 100.
“Appropriate measures” is not clear at first. But here, we know what they will do.
A few suggested a compromise that would still keep the third bullet short. It would revise the third bullet to something like, “take the appropriate action, ranging from mile to severe, to address the specific type of tax cheating.”
Another suggestion made in some focus groups was to leave the text of the third bullet as is, but make “appropriate action” a hyperlink. Many participants agreed with this suggestion, because it makes clear that more information is available on the meaning of “appropriate action” for those who want it, but does not force it on those who do not feel a need to read more.
Section – Different types of tax cheating you can report
This section consists of a bullet point list of nine different types of tax cheating.
This section was flagged by many as being useful, because it helps convey what the term “tax cheating” on the website can mean.
One of the items of the list is, “not filing tax returns when required.” Some participants flagged this because they did not think of this as being “tax cheating.” Their view was that someone who does not file a tax return on the due date but does file it at a later date should not be labeled as a “tax cheat.” In this scenario, the person has taken the step of filing the return and paying any penalties or interest due, and it seems overly harsh to these participants to call this person a tax cheat.
The Information to include web page contains four section: Key identifiers, Facts, Supporting documents, and Examples of complete and incomplete leads. The focus group discussion concentrated on the last section giving an incomplete and complete lead.
Note the version of the Examples of complete and incomplete leads section tested in the focus groups was different from the version that is currently on the CRA website:
The full text of each scenario can be found in the Appendix.
Incomplete and Complete Lead Example
Most participants liked the concept of providing a comparative example of an incomplete versus a more complete lead as a way to reduce incomplete leads. This was perceived to make more concrete what the CRA is expecting, and to illustrate what would not be adequate. Participants felt it would help reduce the number of inadequate leads submitted. The preceding Key Identifiers and Facts sections of the web page give listings of the types of information the CRA would like to get, but this is more abstract, and an example makes the desired types of information more concrete.
Although the concept of providing an example of incomplete and a complete lead was viewed as helpful, quite a few participants said the complete lead could discourage people from proceeding to submit their lead. The issue is that the complete lead examples contain a lot of detail that participants felt would often not be available to a person submitting a lead. A person focusing on the complete lead, and comparing its level of detail to the level of detail in their lead may conclude that they do not have enough information to satisfy the CRA and to justify submitting the lead.
It seems too overwhelming to give this much information on someone. So, that might dissuade some people.
I think it would stop a lot of people from reporting, if they can’t come up with all this type of information.
We are not police officers, detectives. It's a little too much to ask.
I just want to go back to the fact that this is like a tip line. I feel like this kind of makes me feel like the onus is on me to make a full argument and I have to back it up with all the facts to make it a complete thing. Whereas okay, I’m giving you a tip. The onus is on the CRA to investigate whether it’s a true case or not.
Some participants understood that a person can submit a somewhat less than complete lead. For example, a few participants commented that they were not discouraged by the complete lead because they viewed the incomplete and complete leads as opposite ends of a spectrum.
I looked at it as it's two ends of the spectrum and as long as you've got more than the incomplete lead you can report it. You don't have to have as much as the complete lead.
The introduction to the incomplete and complete leads section includes the sentence, “Give as much information as you can; the CRA will take it from there.” Some noticed this and said therefore the complete lead would not discourage them from reporting, but others apparently either missed it or forgot about it by the time they read the complete lead.
Participants were directed to look at the first two sentences on the Information to Include page (so, prior to the Key identifiers, Facts and Supporting documents sections). These sentences state: “You may not have all the information suggested below. But the more details you give, the easier it is for the CRA to level the playing field for all Canadians.” This text was perceived as clearly indicating that it is acceptable and useful to the CRA for a person to submit a less than complete lead. The problem is some said they forgot about this by the time they reached the section with the incomplete and complete leads. Some suggested this needs to be restated in that section.
Some participants suggested that to reduce the potentially discouraging impact of the complete lead, there should also be an example of some sort of intermediate lead that would not be complete, yet would contain enough information to be useful to the CRA. This would concretely communicate that leads do not need to be complete. Several participants suggested a variation on this, which would be a lead with “the minimum information the CRA needs.”
In one focus group, a participant suggested that it would be good to list, using hyperlinks, a variety of examples using different tax scenarios so that a person could find an example similar to their particular lead. This would make more concrete for their particular situation what types of information the CRA would be looking for. Others in the focus group agreed that this would be helpful.
Other Results
The Key identifiers section prefaces a bullet point list with the sentence, “Include specific information about the subject of your lead (could be a person, business or charity), such as”. Several participants suggested to also say something like “give as much as you can”, in order to convey that it is not necessary to provide all of the listed information.
The Key identifiers section includes references to information about people or entities other than the subject of the lead, such as the “spouse’s name”, “shareholders”, or “contractors.” A few participants said they would be uncomfortable providing information on these third parties because they would be concerned about causing difficulties with the CRA for what they perceive as innocent bystanders.
For the tax cheating scenario they read, participants were asked whether or not they considered this something that should be reported to the CRA:
As a brief wrap-up to the focus group, participants were asked if they had seen anything that affected how they think about reporting tax cheating. It should be kept in mind this was necessarily a brief discussion because the very full agenda did not leave much time for the wrap-up.
The clearest result was that participants said they now knew it was possible to report a lead, and how/where to do this. At the start of the groups, the majority of participants did not know the CRA accepts leads from the public and those who did claim to be aware admitted it was only a vague awareness. None of the participants had heard of the Leads Program specifically. Some said that the knowledge they gained from the materials shown in the focus groups at least created a potential for reporting a lead - although few admitted to changing their attitudes, and whether or not they would report a lead would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that from a communications perspective it is easier to change awareness and knowledge than to change attitudes - the latter is usually a longer term goal.
A basic and necessary communication objective is to create awareness that the CRA accepts leads from the public about suspected domestic tax cheating. Earlier sections in the report give some insight into communication themes that have some potential to encourage people to be more likely to report suspected tax cheating. To summarize, the more important themes are:
Number and Location of Focus Groups
Eight two-hour focus groups were conducted between February 12 and 21, 2019, as follows:
| Total | Vancouver | Toronto | Montreal (Fr) | Moncton | |
| High income – More likely to report | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| High income – Less likely to report | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Low-middle income – More likely to report | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Low-middle income – Less likely to report | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Total | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Twelve people were recruited for each focus group. There were 8 or 9 participants in each group for a total of 69 participants.
Qualified Participants
All participants met the Government of Canada (GC) Qualitative Standards for past participation in qualitative research: (a) not attended a qualitative research session within the past six months, and (b) not attended five or more qualitative research sessions in the past five years.
None of the participants were employed in the following industries: marketing research or marketing, media, advertising agency or web or graphic design firm, public relations, federal government, a provincial or local government department related to taxes or finance.
The following were additional qualifications for each of the four target groups.
High income Canadians and residents of Canada
The key qualifications were:
Other participant qualifications included:
A higher proportion of men than women reflects the fact that men have a higher total average income than women. For example, based on 2015 income data, Statistics Canada reports that the average total income of men in Canada was $56,740 and for women was $38,632[1].
Low-middle income Canadians
The key qualifications were:
Minimum quota targets for each focus group were set as follows based on 12 recruits:
| Household income | Minimum # of recruits/group |
| Less than $40K | 3 |
| $40K - $99K | 4 |
| $100K - $199K | 3 |
Other participant qualifications included:
Assessment of likelihood of reporting tax cheating
CRA’s 2017 Annual Corporate Research survey included a survey of the general public. The screener used the following question from the survey to assess likelihood of reporting tax cheating:
Q#CM5A: Thinking about a situation where someone you know may be cheating on his or her taxes. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all likely and 10 means very likely, what is the likelihood you would report this person if you suspected he or she was cheating?
Based on the survey results, the following scale ranges were used to differentiate likelihood of reporting:
Participant Honoraria
Participants were paid an honorarium of $150.
Hello/Bonjour, I'm ___________ of [name of recruiting company], a public opinion and marketing research company. First off, let me assure you that we are not trying to sell you anything. We are organizing a research project on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Would you prefer that I continue in English or in French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [If prefers French, either switch to the French screener and continue, or say the following and then hang up and arrange French-language call-back] Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir.
The research project is specifically for the Canada Revenue Agency. The purpose of the research is to get input on communication materials related to taxation. I'd like to ask you some questions to see if you would be interested in possibly taking part in this study. This will take about 7 minutes.
May I continue?
In this project, an individual like yourself is chosen to sit down with several others and give ideas and opinions in a two-hour discussion session. People who are invited and take part in the group discussion will receive a cash payment honorarium as thanks for their time.
[If prefers to continue in English for the Montreal French-language focus group, ask:] The discussion will be held entirely in French, and participants will be asked to review and discuss written communication materials written only in French. Would you be comfortable with this?
[If prefers to continue in French for the Toronto, Vancouver or Moncton English-language focus groups, ask:] La discussion se déroulera entièrement en anglais et nous demanderons aux participants de passer en revue du matériel de communication en anglais seulement puis d'en discuter. Seriez-vous à l'aise avec cela?
As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the research is to test various communication materials related to taxationand. In the discussion session, you would be asked your opinions about the CRA's performance in ensuring that individuals and businesses comply with tax laws, including the CRA's efforts to address tax cheating. You would also be asked to review various communication materials addressing tax cheating. The results will be used to identify ways these communication materials could be improved and may influence the general direction of certain CRA programs.
Your participation is voluntary and confidential. All information collected, used and/or disclosed will be used for research purposes only and administered per the requirements of the Privacy Act. The names of participants will not be provided to the government. Your decision to take part will not affect any dealings you may have with the Government of Canada.
May I continue?
I need to ask you a few questions to see if you fit the profile of the type of people we are looking for in this research.
Note to recruiter: When terminating a call because of their profile say: Thank you for your cooperation. We already have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours, so we are unable to invite you to participate at this time.
1) First of all, do you, or does anyone in your household, work for . . . ? (Read list, If "Yes" to any, thank and end the interview.)
2) Have you ever participated in an in-depth research interview or a focus group involving a small group of people where people were asked to discuss different topics?
3a) What topics have you ever discussed?______________________________(If related to taxation, thank and terminate)
3b) And when was the last time you attended an interview or discussion group?
3c) In the past 5 years, how many in-depth research interviews or discussion groups have you attended? Would you say less than 5 in total, or would you say 5 or more?
4a) We would like to talk to a cross-section of people with different income levels. For 2018, was your total annual household income from all sources before taxes? (Read List)
4b) And was your total annual household income from all sources before taxes? (Read List)
4c) And was your total annual household income from all sources before taxes? (Read List)
Moncton:
Toronto:
Montreal
Vancouver
5) Record gender:
Low/Middle Income Quota: 6 male, 6 female. High Income Quota: 8 male, 4 female
6) We would like to talk to people in different age groups. Into which one of the following groups should I place you? (Read list)
Low/Middle Income 18-34 = 4; 35-54=4; 55 or over=4. High Income No quotas
7) Past research has shown there is a wide range of attitudes towards the tax system in Canada, and in this project we want to include people with different attitudes. The next several questions are about your opinions on the tax system, and in particular about how common tax cheating is, and the job the Canada Revenue Agency is doing to address tax cheating.
Tax cheating can include unreported income as well as a number of other behaviours, such as falsely claiming tax benefits or credits, or charities making profits from non-charitable activities. However, the next few questions will ask your thoughts about unreported income only.
Nothing in this section is about you personally, but we are interested in getting Canadians' opinions on this topic.
7a) On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all common and 10 means very common, how common do you think income tax cheating is in Canada?
Scale rating #: ______
7b) Over the past couple of years, do you think income tax cheating has: Increased, Decreased, Has remained the same?
7c) Do you think the Canada Revenue Agency is currently putting too much, too little, or about the right amount of effort into reducing income tax cheating?
7d) On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means very unlikely and 10 means very likely, how likely do you think it is for Canadians who cheat on their income taxes to get caught?
Scale rating #: ______
7e) Thinking about a situation where someone you know may be cheating on his or her taxes. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all likely and 10 means very likely, what is the likelihood you would report this person if you suspected he or she was cheating?
Scale rating #: ______
Let me tell you some more about this study to see if you would like to take part.
As I mentioned earlier, the research involves taking part in a focus group discussion. In the group discussion, you will be asked to fill in some short questionnaires in English (French). Also, participants in focus groups are asked to express their thoughts and opinions freely in an informal setting with others. Do you feel comfortable doing this?
Terminate if person gives a reason such as verbal ability, sight, hearing, or related to reading/writing ability, or if they think they may have difficulty expressing their thoughts. If respondent wears glasses, remind them to bring them to the session.
Participants in the discussion group will be asked to turn off any electronic devices during the discussion. Would you be willing to do so?
There may be some people from the Government of Canada who have been involved in this project observing the session. However, they will not take part in the discussion in any way, and they will not be given your name. Is this acceptable to you?
The session will be audio-recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. Your name will not appear in the research report. Is this acceptable to you?
INVITATION
Thank you. We would like to invite you to participate in one of our group discussions. Refreshments will be provided, and you will be paid $150 in cash for your participation immediately at the end of the group discussion. The discussion will last approximately 2 hours starting at _____, and will be held...
As I mentioned earlier, this is a research project being done by the Government of Canada. Specifically, this research project is being done by the Canada Revenue Agency. I want to reassure you that your name will not be given to them, nor will your decision about participating affect any dealings you have with the Canada Revenue Agency.
Would you be willing to attend?
| City/Date: | Location: | Type of group: | Time: |
| Moncton Thurs. Sept 6 | Low/Middle Income - More likely to report Low/Middle Income - Less likely to report |
6:00 - 8:00 pm 8:00 - 10:00 pm |
|
| Toronto Wed. Sept 5 | High Income - Less likely to report Low/Middle Income - More likely to report |
6:00 - 8:00 pm 8:00 - 10:00 pm |
|
| Montreal Thurs. Sept 6 | Low/Middle Income - Less likely to report High Income - More likely to report |
6:00 - 8:00 pm 8:00 - 10:00 pm |
|
| Vancouver Thurs. Sept 6 | High Income - Less likely to report High Income - More likely to report |
6:00 - 8:00 pm 8:00 - 10:00 pm |
As part of our quality control measures, we ask everyone who is participating in the focus group to bring along a piece of I.D., picture if possible. You may be asked to show your I.D.
As these are small groups and with even one person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask that you make every effort to attend the group. But, in the event you are unable to attend, let us know as soon as possible so we can find a replacement. Please call us at [Insert recruiting company phone #]. Please ask for [Insert recruiting company contact name]. Also note that you may not send someone else in your place if you are unable to attend.
Please also arrive 15 minutes prior to the starting time. The discussion begins promptly at [TIME]. People who arrive too late to participate in the focus group will not receive the honorarium.
Someone from our office will be calling you back to confirm these arrangements. May I please have your contact information where we can reach you during the evening and during the day?
Name:_______________________________________________________________
Evening phone:___________________ ; Day time phone:_________________
Email address:_______________________________________________________
Thank you very much!
Recruited by:________________________________________________________
Confirmed by:________________________________________________________
1) Introduction (10 minutes)
a) Introduce self (Rick Robson/Sylvain Laroche of Sage Research, an independent market research company). This is a research project we’re doing on behalf of the Government of Canada, and specifically for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The purpose of the research is to test various communication materials related to taxation. We’ll also talk about your impressions and opinions about the CRA’s performance in its effort to make sure taxpayers follow Canada’s tax laws, and in particular its efforts to address domestic tax cheating. I’ll ask you to review and comment on various communication materials associated with addressing tax cheating. The results of the research will be used to identify ways these communication materials could be improved. The feedback received may also influence the general direction of certain CRA programs.
b) Review group discussion procedures:
c) Any questions?
d) Participant self-introductions: First name only
2) Impressions of CRA and tax cheating (15 minutes)
NOTE TO CRA: 2b/c/d have been left as is for now, as don’t see a way to speed it up
a) Just quickly, what overall impression or opinion, if any, do you have about the job the CRA is doing to address general domestic tax cheating and unreported income? You may not really have any overall impression or opinion, but if you do I’d like to hear it.
b) One of the things the CRA does is they accept tips from the public about people or businesses a person thinks might be cheating on their taxes.
c)The name of the CRA program is the Leads Program. Has anyone heard of this specific program?
d)[Ask everyone, but particularly of those not familiar with the name of the Leads Program] If you heard that the CRA has something called the Leads Program, what would you think it is? Does the name make it sound like a way for people to report suspected tax cheating, or not really?
3) Perceived pros and cons of reporting tax cheating (20 minutes)
As we’ve just been talking about, the CRA provides a way for members of the public to report a person or business suspected of tax cheating. In real life, some people will report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA, while others won’t.
(Pass out Questionnaire 1 and review; give participants 4-5 minutes to complete)
What do you think are reasons why some people are more likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA?
What do you think are reasons why some people are less likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA?
4) Reactions to messages (25 minutes)
The CRA has some ideas for what to say to encourage people who know about a case of suspected tax cheating to report this to the CRA. I want to show you their ideas and get your reactions.
Each idea is in the form of a couple of sentences. And each one is a concept for a message that could appear, for example, on a website, a social media site, or on something like Twitter.
I want to emphasize that these are just ideas at this point. If they use one of these ideas, the language might be a little bit different, or it might appear together with some sort of picture or graphic.
[Review Questionnaire #2]
Do votes for each message:
Discuss each message (use votes to decide order of discussion; in general start with the less popular messages)
5) Reactions to web pages: Report a lead on suspected tax cheating in Canada (40 minutes)
The CRA website provides information on how to report a lead on a case of suspected tax cheating. They want to identify ways in which the information they provide could be made more clear or useful.
The website consists of four web pages. I’m going to show you three of the web pages, one at a time, and get your thoughts about each.
Pass out Web Page: Overview, and review:
For each web page, ask these general probes after the specific probes, time permitting:
Specific probes for each web page
5a) Overview
5b) What you need to know
5c) Information to include
Explain prior to participants reviewing the page: The CRA website provides an online form for submitting a lead. There is a link to this online form on the next web page I’ll show you, that is, the one on How to report. I’m not going to show you the online form, but I just wanted to let you know that there is an easily accessible online form to provide the information described on this page on Information to include.
5d)[Show and discuss How to report page only if time permitting]
Wrap-up (10 minutes)
You've now seen various communication materials, including messages that try to encourage people to report a case of suspected tax cheating, and the CRA's website on reporting leads.
Has anything you''ve seen tonight affected how you think about what you might do if you knew of a case of domestic tax cheating by a person or business? Has anything make you more likely to consider reporting it to the CRA? Less likely?
Thank you for coming this evening and giving us your opinions.
Please leave all the papers on the table.
On your way out, please don't forget to see the host to sign for and receive your incentive envelope.
Group 1: There is another group waiting out there to have this same discussion. So please don't talk about anything related to what we have done here to make sure they don't have any more information than you did before our discussion.
Questionnaire #1
Among people who know that you can report suspected cases of domestic tax cheating to the CRA, some are likely to report suspected tax cheating, while some are not likely to do this.
What do you think are reasons why some people are more likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA?
What do you think are reasons why some people are less likely to report a case of suspected tax cheating to the CRA?
For your information, here are some examples of tax cheating (it's not a complete list):
Questionnaire #2: Message Concepts
Here are some different concepts for messages to encourage someone who knows of a suspected case of tax cheating by a person or business to report it to the CRA
S: Tax cheating takes away from funding for crucial services like hospitals, schools and programs that we all rely on. It may not always be easy, but by reporting tax cheating to the CRA, you're helping to make sure the tax system is fair to everyone.
K: A few dollars of unreported income may not seem like a big deal, but collectively they amount to billions of dollars lost that are needed to fund public services in your community. Be part of the solution! Report suspected tax cheating.
B: Some people think that if they don't declare a small amount of income, if they operate in cash, or if they don't keep records, the CRA won't find out. That's false. The CRA has many tools and partners to detect tax cheating. Do your part and report it!
R: Someone who uses government services but doesn't pay taxes is putting their hands in your pocketbook and helping themselves. That just isn't right. Report suspected tax cheating to us.
F: The Government of Canada is committed to making the tax system fair for all. All taxpayers have to pay their fair share of taxes and abide by Canadian law. Do you suspect someone or a business of tax cheating? Report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Your identity will be protected and the information you provide to the CRA will remain anonymous, by law.
1. Please sort all 5 messages into one or the other of the following two categories:
| Meaningful and motivating for you to consider reporting a case of suspected tax cheating | Not very meaningful or motiving for you to report a case of suspected tax cheating |
| Write in the message letters: | Write in the message letters: |
2. Now, please rank all 5 messages, assuming you are aware of a case of suspected tax cheating by a person or business (write in the message letter)
| More meaningful and motivating for you to report it to the CRA | #1.________ |
| #2.________ | |
| #3.________ | |
| #4.________ | |
| Less meaningful and motivating for you to report it to the CRA | #5.________ |
1. Overview
If you suspect a person, business or charity of tax cheating in Canada, report them to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) by submitting a lead to the Leads Program. If your information is related to Canadians cheating taxes internationally, you have to submit it under a different program, the Offshore Tax Informant Program.
How you make a difference
The CRA uses the information in your lead to make sure the tax system is fair for all Canadians. Your lead could also boost the actions the CRA is already taking to fight tax cheating. However, you will not receive feedback or updates after you submit a lead. This is because the CRA cannot disclose information about other taxpayers. Furthermore, the CRA does not give monetary rewards for information about suspected tax cheating under this program. When you submit a lead, you are supporting your community and the programs and services we all rely on to improve quality of life in Canada.
2. What you need to know
Different types of tax cheating you can report:
Privacy
You will remain anonymous
When you report suspected tax cheating (by submitting a lead), you will not be asked to disclose personal information about yourself. The protection of personal information is important, and the CRA is committed to protecting your identity. This means that the CRA will do all it can, under the law, to protect your identity along with any information that suggests you submitted a lead. Accordingly, if asked to disclose that information under a formal Access to Information Act request or Privacy Act request, the CRA will claim an exemption from such disclosure under subparagraphs 16(1)(c)(ii) of the Access to Information Act and 22(1)(b)(ii) of the Privacy Act.
CRA's use of information and documents
The information you provide is collected under the authority of federal tax laws, and it is protected under the confidentiality provisions of those laws, as well as by privacy laws that impose strict limits on what the CRA can disclose. The CRA may use the information you provide to make sure taxpayers meet their tax obligations.
Process
When the CRA receives a lead (it must be in English or French), it will take these steps:
The CRA might add the following to supplement the last bullet of the Process section of this web page:
Possible additional text:
These compliance actions range from mild to severe and may include education letters, reassessments, audits, and, when warranted, fines, penalties, or criminal prosecution. Depending on the type of intervention, it may take us some time to process the file. The ultimate goal is to bring the taxpayer back into long-term tax compliance.
3. Information to include
You may not have all the information suggested below. But the more details you give, the easier it is for the CRA to level the playing field for all Canadians. Below is the type of information the CRA would like to receive to allow it to take the appropriate action. However, do not put yourself in danger or break the law to get it.
Key identifiers
Include specific information about the subject of your lead (could be a person, business or charity), such as:
Facts
Describe what you know about the subject of your lead, with as many details as possible, including:
Supporting documents
If you have supporting documents to complement the lead, send them by mail. Examples of supporting documents are:
If you submit your lead online or by phone, you will be given a reference number. Write your reference number on your supporting documents and mail them to the National Leads Centre. The CRA will match your supporting documents to the lead you submitted. The documents will not be returned to you.
Examples of complete and incomplete leads (Version 1)
The following examples show the differences between a lead that is complete and one that is incomplete.
A complete lead has enough details to help the CRA conduct a review to figure out if someone is cheating on their taxes. An incomplete lead makes it more difficult to conduct a review and may not allow the CRA to address the suspected tax cheating. Give as much information as you can; the CRA will take it from there.
Incomplete lead
For six months, Linda Woo has been living with her boyfriend, Jim Johnson, at 123 Main St., Smallville, Saskatchewan. Linda is 38 years old and Jim is 39. Jim’s car is always parked in Linda’s driveway. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t report that she’s in a common-law marital relationship. Linda and Jim don’t have children together, but Linda has a child from a previous marriage. However, since she divorced her ex-husband, I haven’t seen the child. I want you to audit Linda, she is a dishonest person!
Conclusion:
Complete lead
Linda Woo has been living with her boyfriend, Jim Johnson, for two years. Linda is 38 years old and Jim is 39. They live at 123 Main St., Smallville, Saskatchewan, but Jim uses his mother’s address at 456 Drury Lane, Smallville, Saskatchewan when communicating with the government to pretend that he and Linda live apart to get more benefit payments. They don’t have children together, but Linda has a child from a previous marriage. The child’s name is James Smith who lives half of the time with Linda and the other half with his father, as agreed in their child custody arrangement. Linda suggested that I do the same thing to get more Canada child benefit and GST credit payments. I’m sharing this information with the CRA because I believe that what she is doing is unfair and dishonest.
Conclusion:
Examples of complete and incomplete leads (Version 2)
Incomplete lead
John Smith makes a lot of money by selling houses. He has had tenants in his properties for many years, but he doesn’t declare any income he makes from renting his properties.
Conclusion:
Complete lead
John Smith hasn’t reported income from the sale and rental of his properties, which he owned for the past 10 years. Mr. Smith had several properties located on 45, 39, and 23 Easy St., Maintown, in Ontario. Each property had three rental units: the main floor which was rented for $800/month, the basement rented for $500/month and the upper floors rented for $650/month. He has also owned an apartment building at 106 Nestle Drive, Maintown, Ontario, which had 8 two-bedroom units that he rented for $1,000/month, plus utilities.
Last year, Mr. Smith sold all of his rental properties at a listed price of $195,000 each for the small units and of $600,000 for the building. All units were occupied until the day the properties were sold. He recently bought a 5,500 sq.-foot house located on a 1.5-acre lot at 649 Windfall Crescent, in Snowville, Ontario, for about $1.2 million. In addition to his property assets, he owns 5 luxury vintage vehicles: a 1965 Shelby Mustang, a 1963 Austin Mini, a 1971 Chevrolet Camaro, a 1964 Chevrolet Impala, and a 1977 Jaguar. Overall, Mr. Smith lives a very expensive lifestyle, drives a Mercedes Benz and vacations in Cuba for 6 months of the year.
Conclusion:
Examples of complete and incomplete leads (Version 3)
Incomplete lead
Jacqueline Bordeaux runs a house-cleaning agency. She earns all of her income as “cash under the table.” She has lots of employees working for her and has been doing this for years. She doesn’t accept any form of payment other than cash.
Conclusion:
Complete lead
Jacqueline Bordeaux has owned and operated a house-cleaning agency for over four years. Her company name is Dust Busters and she advertises all over the place in Toronto, Ontario. She charges approximately $35/hour/house or $125 per day/house. Her company cleans about 450 houses per week and clients are expected to pay either in cash or by cheque written out to her name. She also charges them GST/HST, but doesn’t actually remit those amounts to the CRA.
Ms. Bordeaux uses a phony business number to fool people into thinking that she owns a registered company. However, her GST number was verified with Business Enquiries and indicated as non-existent. She owns about 5 vans for her employees to use, all of which are registered under her employees’ names. She pays $2,500/month for the vans and $1,500 per month for her commercial space. Bordeaux lives in an expensive home and drives a luxury 2016 BMW SUV vehicle. She never gives out proper receipts; they are missing identification, phone number, business address information, etc. Her receipts show nothing more than the amount the clients pay.
Conclusion:
Examples of complete and incomplete leads (Version 4)
Incomplete lead
I heard that The Coffee Shop here in my town is not paying its employees and not filing taxes on behalf of the business.
Conclusion:
Complete lead
I worked for The Coffee Shop, located at 987 Weldend Street, Norspray City, Newfoundland, for the past seven years and know that they have never filed taxes for the business. Since I’ve been there, the owner, Chuck Swan, and her managers, Floyd Beaner and Margaret Finkle, have always bragged about not paying taxes. The business has always been staffed with five to seven full-time employees and one or two part-time employees. Each employee is paid weekly, by cheque, at a rate of $10/hour. But another business name is indicated on the cheques. Although benefits were taken off my pay every week (CPP, EI, etc.), I have never received a T4 earnings slip for tax purposes. The hours of operation are 7am to 8pm, Monday through Friday, and 8am to 6pm on weekends. The phone number is 123-456-7890.
Conclusion:
4. How to report
Once you submit a lead, it is not possible for you to take it back. Thank you for helping to fight tax cheating.
Submit a lead online
Other ways to report:
[1] Statistics Canada. 2017. Census Profile. 2016 Census.