# Redacting SIN numbers on printouts **URL:** \ **Category:** Product Suggestions\ **Created:** [October 3, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808 "2016-10-03T17:48:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![m.turner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@m.turner](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/m.turner)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/1 "2016-10-03T17:48:58Z")
Wondering if there is a way to print the Client Copy and the Office copy of returns (T1 in particular, but T2 also…) without the SIN number appearing in the header of the pages? Also, is it possible to find a way to print those same copies with the SIN number redacted (or truncated to last 3 digits or something) on the Jacket of the returns - maybe as a print option?Reason for the request is for sending copies of returns by email when not using encryption. We do use e-Courier, but some clients will receive the return from us and then forward it to their bank, etc without any encryption. ---
**Author:** ![Cameron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/cameron/32/12_2.png) [@Cameron](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/Cameron)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/2 "2016-10-04T01:55:59Z")
I’m going to look at this in the next few weeks. Does this need to be an option, or could we just show that last 4 digits of the SIN for everyone? ~ Cameron ---
**Author:** ![james1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/james1/32/47_2.png) [@james1](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/james1)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/3 "2016-10-04T14:28:06Z")
> [@m.turner](#): > > encryption. We do use e-Courier, but some clients will receive the return from us and then forward it to their bank, etc without any encryption. I would say option would be your best solution ---
**Author:** ![m.turner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@m.turner](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/m.turner)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/4 "2016-10-04T16:36:34Z")
Thanks Cameron… Having the option to display or not would be preferable but I’d be happy with the last 3 or 4 digits if that was the only way to make it work. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![harlen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@harlen](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/harlen)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/5 "2016-10-04T22:18:28Z")
I really support the idea of doing something with the printed SIN. The option to blank it out would also be my first choice but to limit it to 3 or 4 digits would be quite workable. I’d like to email the T183 to the clients but have not done it because of the SIN that’s printed on it. ---
**Author:** ![mjeconsulting](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/mjeconsulting/32/253_2.png) [@mjeconsulting](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/mjeconsulting)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/6 "2016-10-05T17:54:40Z")
I think this would be an excellent option. Last 4 digits works for me and will add that extra bit of security to the client file. ---
**Author:** ![michael](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/michael/32/128_2.png) [@michael](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/michael)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/7 "2016-10-05T19:08:21Z")
Well, as we like things as they are and we use e-courier to and from our clients. Downloads of their copy to where ever is not our problem; we don’t control that issue. Seems the majority of you want some of the SIN. Maybe do as CRA does xxx xxx 000 to be consistent… ---
**Author:** ![james1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/james1/32/47_2.png) [@james1](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/james1)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/8 "2016-10-05T19:32:13Z")
I suspect it will be optional ---
**Author:** ![Cameron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/cameron/32/12_2.png) [@Cameron](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/Cameron)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/9 "2016-10-06T03:24:13Z")
I’ve taken a first pass at this… in the print headings at least. Here’s the new print option: ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/taxcycle/original/1X/eeadf60f623c95b0a6cfb3457a4feef2526476ee.png) You also have the option to blank the SIN (or business number) completely, or to show it as we do now. Here’s the sample print out: ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/taxcycle/original/1X/3dc5c3c092f4d66c1633c781d97e6e1abdbc70bb.png) The next obvious step is to control the appearance of SINs within prescribed fields on the government forms as well, which is a bigger project… I assume that’s the next request?? For our next release, we’ll cover off the headers on the T1 forms, and we’ll expand out from there. ~ Cameron ---
**Author:** ![m.turner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@m.turner](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/m.turner)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 4:12am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/10 "2016-10-07T04:12:26Z")
Thanks Cameron! Yes, the next step would be to mask the numbers on the CRA forms… ---
**Author:** ![mjeconsulting](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/mjeconsulting/32/253_2.png) [@mjeconsulting](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/mjeconsulting)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/11 "2016-10-08T23:49:48Z")
This is excellent. ---
**Author:** ![TimParris](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/timparris/32/240_2.png) [@TimParris](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/TimParris)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/12 "2016-10-10T14:11:19Z")
Are you allowed to mask the SIN on the T183, T1032, etc? I think that the CRA requires that those forms have the SIN in full. ---
**Author:** ![Cameron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/cameron/32/12_2.png) [@Cameron](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/Cameron)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/13 "2016-10-10T18:51:34Z")
@TimParris, No, you’d not be allowed to mask the SIN on anything you send to the CRA. However, we’ll give you the option to mask the SIN on anything you print for your client’s records. It will be up to the preparer to make sure not to send anything to the CRA that was intended only for the client… ~ Cameron ---
**Author:** ![TimParris](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/timparris/32/240_2.png) [@TimParris](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/TimParris)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/14 "2016-10-11T00:12:48Z")
I know where you are coming from @Cameron as a signed T183, etc. should have the SIN written in full. The fact the preparer CAN print the T183 with a redacted SIN will imply to some people that this is a perfectly acceptable practice. They will get their knuckles rapped and, unfortunately, will turn around and say that the software permitted this. I would suggest that either: - you don’t build this option in, or - you only permit it after the preparer checks off that there is a signed copy on file first. This will prevent confusion. ---
**Author:** ![mjeconsulting](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/mjeconsulting/32/253_2.png) [@mjeconsulting](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/mjeconsulting)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/15 "2016-10-11T04:39:50Z")
Hi Tim, I think you are under estimating the tax preparer. I often send documents and letters to legal, banks and other organizations on behalf of clients and use PDF to redact the sin number for security measures. Having this option straight from TaxCycle as an additional option is great. If a tax preparer doesn’t want to use it, then they don’t have too. I don’t think there is any confusion to prevent. The T183 and any other document that is electronically sent to CRA will not have the SIN redacted, but I think having printed materials redact the SIN is a good security measure. Cheers Michael ---
**Author:** ![traceychaves](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/www.protaxcommunity.com/traceychaves/32/144_2.png) [@traceychaves](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/u/traceychaves)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://www.protaxcommunity.com/t/redacting-sin-numbers-on-printouts/808/16 "2016-10-14T00:52:20Z")
This is an excellent added feature. I do agree with @TimParris suggestion to only permit it after the prepare checks off that there is a signed copy on the first file or perhaps a warning not be allowed to mask the SIN on anything you send to the CRA.