My dilemma with the Employer Employee Agreement

It is my firm belief that the fulcrum to subsistence allowance is the employer employee agreement. Without an adequate EEA CRA may try and find legal grounds to overturn its inherent equality.

Therefore I am in a deep personal conflict. I wish to see thousands of operators use subsistence allowance within three to five years. However, one of the success factors needed is the compliant application of the EEA. Without adequate control over the application I may be placing the national acceptance in jeopardy. Providing a perfectly acceptable EEA to someone who doesn’t apply it properly may be placing the entire industry at risk. So what do I do? … its not a rhetorical question… it’s an actual question….

I’ll tell you what I’ve done SO FAR. I have provided a general EEA to our firm’s clients. I then monitor (yes even demand) proper application of it. If a client shows that they are not interested in compliance I remove them from its application (and usually our firm). Why should non-compliant people receive the same non-taxable benefits as compliant people? I don’t know… maybe I’m a control freak!

For the good of the entire industry and future application of the allowance, I am of the opinion (at least right now) I must retain control of the EEA. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court defending the systems integrity but not without assurance the application is reasonably applied.
I am reminded of the tax court judge that presided over the Don Wilkerson court case. The critical quote was “… these kinds of aberrations cannot occur…”. It was clear that the tax court will not stand for injustice, inequality and aberrations. However, we don’t want to present an ethical argument without any regards to compliance. In my opinion the application of the EEA must be applied nationally, the more consistent the better. I think that firms that have been using subsistence would agree with me.