Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site spectrix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Borrowed records from Revenue Canada
Message-ID: <197@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Nov-86 11:48:25 EST
Article-I.D.: spectrix.197
Posted: Mon Nov 24 11:48:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Nov-86 22:23:36 EST
References: <623@water.UUCP> <192@spectrix.UUCP> <497@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: can
Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 66

In article <497@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes:
>Chris Lewis remarks (in an extremely informative posting) that you don't
>need a SIN to open a bank account. I'm afraid that this statement is
>incorrect: 

>   the Tax Act requires that banks report interest on accounts 
>	(and therefore a SIN is required).

The parenthesized part is not necessarily a consequence of the former.

Certainly, the banks are required to report interest, but this doesn't 
necessarily mean that you have to supply them with a SIN.  All they do
is give *you* the T5's and *you* send them off to Taxation.  As such,
there isn't any particular need for a SIN number because your SIN number
*must* be in the return itself.  As there isn't with tuition fee 
receipts, profit declarations from capital gains etc.

A friend informs me that on CBC (Cross-Country-Checkup regarding the
Privacy Commission a day or so ago) that somebody said that theoretically 
the Banks do not need the SIN number, but their practise, (presumeably to 
reduce distribution hassles, tie into future RRSP, CSB stuff etc., and
problems during Revenue investigations when the revenoors say "give us
everything you got on person so-and-so"), is to ask you for it.  The 
comment was that there are banks who didn't insist upon SINs.  I would imagine
that Revenue Canada appreciates the banks who do insist on SINs - makes it
a little easier to ensure that a T5 in a return corresponds to a given person.

I would imagine though, that like the US, the banks might have to report 
certain categories to the govt., though not neccessarily to Taxation.  
I've been told that all cash deposits in the US over $10,000 have to be 
reported to the FBI!  (Rationale: Anything over 10K in cash has to be drugs...)

I imagine that it is also possible to refuse a SIN to your employer (given
that the employer still hired you) and it shouldn't make much difference
(except for nuisance value to employer).  This would be roughly equivalent
(regarding Revenue Canada's trust of your return) to being self-employed.

Hmm, I'll have an opportunity to test (or at least enquire about it)
this latter point shortly...

There is a big difference between "required procedure" and "practice".
Many organizations insist on certain things simply to make their accounting/
paperwork easier.  They rely on the fact that most people won't object - won't
even think about it.  Rather than being a "sheep" you can refuse to go
along with this.  However, there *may* be a *bigger* risk in refusing to
supply a SIN number.  Then there is much more possibility for confusion
between you and another person with the same name - and you might never
guess that one of the credit bureaus or investigative agencies has
you confused with somebody who skipped on a mortgage and child support
payments in Calgary.  The SIN number does protect you in a way - tends
to ensure that your records are more accurate.  Even though I know that
it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to give some organization a SIN number,
most of the time I give it anyways - to protect *myself* against corporate
screwups.  And corporate screwups of this nature are almost always *far* *far* 
more likely and damaging than somebody trying to do a computer match.

The nastiest situations OHIP got itself into were simply processing mistakes
where only the patient and family were involved and were largely as a result
of ID-related screwups.  In comparison, breaches of security involving others 
were mere nuisances (though there were lots more of them).
-- 
Chris Lewis
Spectrix Microsystems Inc,
UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov
Phone: (416)-474-1955