As a recipient of the Alberta climate incentive payment earmarked by the powers-that-be as: “AFT Pre-Authorized Credit CANADA Federal Payment |” (with no reference to the incentive), I realized my payment was missing the 10% top-up. My return has the required check-mark on Schedule 14.
After 45+ minutes in CRA’s General Enquires queue, I was transferred to the Climate Action Incentive area with another 90 minutes in hold before speaking to a representative, spending over 2 hours on the phone.
EDIT: “Just learned line 60104 can be updated as an online ADJ. My return shows an assessed 0. 1 is Yes and 2 is no. Not looking forward to amending most of my returns. Can’t justify pestering clients for a Re-file T183.”
CRA has no record of the check-mark. While on the call, I had the rep check another local client and then another in southern Alberta, nowhere near Lethbridge. Though all the returns have the check-marks, CRA has no Schedule 14 data. All have the basic payment BUT NO 10% Schedule 14 top up.
@helga_spence I’m in Ontario, Same issue as you. Same waste of time with CRA, except I was told there was “no Climate Incentive specific department”.
Schedule 14 properly filled and transmitted.
That’s why we wait in line to be transferred to someone who gets some answers. CRA needs an option for this since it since it is no longer a credit reducing taxes/increasing the refund. Over 2 hours ANYTIME is rediculous, but to wait twice because you can’t get into the line to start with… Bad enough when we need level two where the second wait sometimes means soeone will call you in three days. A couple of weeks ago the ONLY return call was five days later, not the promised three. No apology for the delay.
Telephone tag is not an option. If they get the answering machine, you often have to start over. 8-(
yes @Arliss - I would be in this category. I had checked myself as recipient but filed my spouse’s 14 seconds before mine - So glad CRA is amazingly synchronized …
We have updated our Known Issue to include how to add field 60104 from Schedule 14 to the client’s return. Easiest is to use “Change my return” on Represent a client.
ReFILE won’t see it as a change (a checkbox) and sending a T1-ADJ will take a long time.
Sorry for the inconvenience…I have flogged myself for this oversight.
Using ReFile I submitted line 60104 and it does show up as a
1 when logging in to CRA account and using Change My Return as the previous existing value
It does seem more of an CRA issue as they randomly decided who would get the CAIP amount based on the return processed first, even when they have all the information available. Address, City, Postal Code.
It does seem more of an CRA issue as they randomly decided who would get the CAIP amount based on the return processed first, even when they have all the information available. Address, City, Postal Code.
The current address may differ from the Dec 31 address.
One of my clients lived in Nanton Dec 31 but is now in Calgary.
His current address would preclude the 10% top up, but his Dec 31st address qualifies him.
Wow this is more than an inconvenience, is there any reports that will list out the date and time filed of the clients. If I know that, then at least I could find out which client was submitted first. Thanks.
Just checked my own, as well as several clients for whom I filed, and found only one (so far) where CRA sent the payment to the other spouse (and thus needs to be adjusted). I am in Sask, as are most of my clients.
Is there a way to search in client manager for clients that have that box checked? I can’t remember all the clients I have that are outside of the CMA, so it would be easier if I could create a filter for it. Is it even possible to do a filter based on a field code??
I have clients getting reassessed recently correcting for this earlier problem.
I had only been fixing on discovery so far. Due to the way I process and the filing order I generally use it was a minimal issue for me.
Was this somehow a Taxcycle initiated solution or has the CRA initiated their own fix?
I has assumed this was a Taxcycle issue but maybe it was all the software vendors?