In its final update, the Ombuds Office reviewed how the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) implemented its action plan in response to the report. The Ombuds Office concluded that the CRA’s action plan “sufficiently addressed the spirit” of the report’s recommendation to create unconscious bias training for Charities Directorate employees.

The CRA implemented the action plan over the short-term, medium-term, and long-term. The Ombuds Office final update responded to each part of the action plan.

Short-term

Although the Ombuds Office did not specifically recommend it, CRA added mandatory unconscious bias training in 2023-2024 for all permanent staff, and voluntary training for contract workers.

The Ombuds Office took issue with two things: (1) the training focussed too much on relationships instead of decision making and (2) the training was not mandatory for contract workers.

Medium-term

The CRA created a new mandatory training suite that drew on existing government courses, but included new content relevant to decision-making in the Charities Directorate.

The Ombuds Office found this plan addressed the spirit of its recommendation.

Long-term

All of the CRA’s employees involved in charity audits have completed an unconscious bias course. Only those who were on leave or other assignments did not complete the training.

The Ombuds Office was satisfied with this action item.

The post Federal Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson: Final Update appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Charities that are changing their purposes are required to send their formally adopted, updated governing documents to the CRA. If a charity starts new activities in support of new or existing purposes, sending an updated statement of activities to the CRA is also encouraged. The CRA may follow up to address concerns or request additional information.

CRA client service representatives may be able to help with general questions. This change is one of the recent updates from the CRA to streamline its practices.

While charities now have more flexibility to make changes without pre-approval, there is also greater responsibility. If the CRA audits a charity and finds that its purposes are not charitable or that its activities do not align with those purposes, there may be compliance risks. To support charities in the absence of pre-approvals, the CRA has indicated that a new suite of resources is forthcoming. Once these resources are available, CCCC will be sure to review the refreshed guidance on charitable purposes, model purposes, and the guide on understanding and drafting charitable purposes and let you know of any key changes.

If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team by phone or email.

The post Charities Directorate No Longer Approving Charitable Purposes   appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

We first noted the Directorate’s move toward online-by-default filing in our September blog, citing efficiency, effectiveness, and environmental benefits as key reasons for the shift.

In its recent announcement, the Directorate expanded on the problems with faxed filings. It explained that it “receives hundreds of thousands of pages through fax that must be manually entered before they can be processed. This process is slow, time-consuming, resource-intensive, and poses security risks.”

Need help with your T3010? CCCC offers a digital filing option using CRA-certified T3010 software. It is free for members and available to non-members for a nominal fee. We also provide additional T3010 resources to help you file accurately and on time.

The Charities Directorate is offering support to charities transitioning to digital filing, including:

• Online resources
  • Register to use online services for charities *NEW
  • Upcoming webinar on CRA digital services (dates TBD)
  • How to file – Filing a Registered Charity Information Return (T3010)
• Client services 1-800-267-2384

As always, CCCC members can also contact our Member Support Team by phone or email for additional guidance and support.

The post Charities Directorate Retiring Fax Line appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

It concluded that there was “a lack of rigour in RAD’s processes” which resulted in a number of RAD audits where the charities did not present “credible risks of terrorist abuse.”

THE ESSENTIALS

Why This Report Matters

First, although buried in an annex, this report tells us that the number of religious charities is likely under reported in the CRA’s data. This is because charities are given only one code by CRA and a dual-purpose organization (advancing education and advancing religion) may have only an education-related coding.

Second, the report points out deficiencies in RAD’s audit processes, specifically that they need to be more consistent, better documented, and be regularly reviewed to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Third is CRA’s response to the report which shows it is willing to receive and act on some, but not all, recommendations from reviews of its activities.

Fourth, the impetus for the review was grounded in concerns about religious discrimination but it did not conclusively demonstrate that RAD audits are biased. The CRA does not collect this demographic information for the purposes of audit and could neither refute nor substantiate the claims. RAD’s “general scrutiny of the subset of charities may be justified” but only where it is based on credible risks of terrorist abuse, “using rigorous methodologies and practices” and these require attention and remediation.

Fifth, and finally, it provides a small but interesting window into RAD’s work.

What Comes Next?

CCCC takes the position that all charities should be treated fairly, respectfully and on the basis of a principled regulatory and policy framework. The NSIRA review is an important part of ensuring transparency in whether and how government agencies meet these expectations.

In this case, the CRA has committed to addressing important issues of process and documentation deficiencies. We will monitor how RAD and CRA implement changes in response to the recommendations because all charities, regardless of religious identity, should be treated with respect. Consistent, fair and principled oversight is in everyone’s interest.

THE DETAILS

What Is RAD and Why Does It Matter?

RAD was established in 2003 as a specialized division within CRA that focuses on risks of terrorism financing through registered charities. It manages a compliance program based solely on terrorism-related risk indicators. Its work is informed by leads from media, intelligence partners, internal referrals, and public tips. After assessing terrorism risks, RAD may complete a comprehensive assessment that will, in turn, leader to recommending a RAD audit, referring to CRA’s Compliance Division, continuing monitoring or discontinuing monitoring.

RAD audits represent less than 0.5% of all Charities Directorate audits.

What is NSIRA and Why Did It Complete this Review?

NSIRA is an independent body reporting to Parliament. Its role is to review national security activities to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and necessary.

In this case, NSIRA reviewed how RAD selects charities for terrorism-related audits to assess whether its practices are discriminatory on the basis of religion.

The review focused on RAD’s pre-audit decision-making processes, analyzing 15 charity files (from a pool of 37 completed RAD audits), with “particular attention” paid to the eight charities selected for audit after 2016. It also sampled all risk assessments conducted from 2020 to mid-2024.

Overview of NSIRA’s Key Findings

Important Role but Process Problems

NSIRA affirmed that CRA audits help fulfill Canada’s international obligations to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing in the charitable sector. But in fulfilling this function, NSIRA concluded that there was “a lack of rigour in RAD’s processes” such as lack of documentation and not properly validating risks. In half of the 37 audit files reviewed, there was no record of why audit selection was approved for the charity and the files lacked consistency in how risks were captured and assessed. In some cases, the terrorism risks were based on outdated information, mitigating information was sometime sought after an audit began, or audits were not driven by credible risks of terrorist abuse.

Religious Discrimination

When it comes to the question of possible religious discrimination, the report concluded that RAD’s processes “place it at risk of breaching its non-discrimination obligations” under the Charter; however, CRA does not collect demographic data to either refute or substantiate claims of discrimination so NSIRA relied on contextual information.

At the same time, NSIRA explained that while CRA does not track demographic affiliations, “the one exception pertains to the ‘advancement of religion’ category code, where data does exist.” The report states that as of March 2025, “0.66% of registered charities are characterized as advancing Islam” but 35% of the charities audited by RAD were under this category code, a notable and significant difference.

The report also noted that “the religious affiliation of Canada’s listed terrorist entities and the NIRA’s terrorism financing threat group of actors reflects a roughly similar proportion to the charities audited by RAD.”

RAD relies on the listed entities as identified by the Government of Canada but does not make decisions about listing.  NSIRA states that: “In the context of RAD’s mandate to protect the charitable sector against vulnerability to exploitation by terrorist actors, RAD’s general scrutiny of the subset of charities may be justified. However, this is only true insofar as RAD maintains strict attention on those charities that are credibly at risk of terrorist abuse, using rigorous methodologies and practices.”

In recent years, listed terrorist entities have become more diverse, and as a result RAD includes this diverse range of charities in its initial risk assessments. RAD explained that more recently listed entities are not currently known to use the charitable sector to finance their activities.

NSIRA’s Six Recommendations & CRA’s Response

On the same day that NSIRA released its report, the CRA released its response. It fully agreed with three of the recommendations (#2, #3, #5), generally agreed with one (#4), and disagreed with two (#1, #6).

1. That the CRA collect and evaluate demographic data from the sector to ensure its treatment of charities is not discriminatory.

The CRA disagreed with this recommendation, citing the Privacy Act, which governs collection and use of personal information. The CRA can only collect information that relates directly to an operating program or activity. If the information is not necessary to regulate the sector or serve a compliance-related purpose, the CRA cannot require it be disclosed. The CRA affirmed that “it does not select registered charities for audit, nor does it apply policies or procedures differently, based on any particular faith or denomination.”

On this point, it seems collecting this information outside of the context of a charity’s category code could be extremely complex, if it is even desirable or permitted by law. Is the demographic data that of the directors? Or is it the identity of the charity? In the case of the latter, the category code could already provide helpful data. If it is the former, it becomes problematic and complicated as directors may serve on a wide range of boards that reflect some, all, or none of their particular personal demographic identifiers.

2. That RAD develop an evidence-based way of validating its risk indicators.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation stating that its risk indicators are consistent with international standards which have remained relatively stable. Nonetheless, it will develop and implement a formal periodic review.

3. That RAD formally document its decisions about when, and on what basis, it audits.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation. Effective for 2025-26 fiscal, a formal tracking mechanism will be used to oversee audit referrals, refine processes, and formally document audit decisions.

4. That RAD update its process for assessing risk of terrorist abuse in a charity.

The CRA generally agreed with this recommendation. Its current practice is to evaluate information used in risk assessment against established research standards. NSIRA pointed to examples of using dated information, but the CRA explained that “this information alone did not serve as a primary or significant basis for audit referral.” Because of NSIRA’s concerns, the CRA will examine its process to identify further measures that could reduce risks of bias in decision-making.

5. That RAD ensure it decision-making pre-audit is supported by current, credible information.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation. It reflects CRA’s current practice for evaluating information used in risk assessments against established research standards. NSIRA found examples of RAD using dated information, but the CRA explained that information alone did not serve “as a primary or significant basis for an audit referral.” The CRA will examine current processes and procedures to reduce the risk of bias in decision-making.

6. That the CRA compare audit outcomes between RAD and the Compliance Division to determine whether any identified differences are justified.

The CRA disagreed with this recommendation. Audit outcomes are determined on a case-by-case basis and seek to enforce uniform regulations that apply to all registered charities, including risks related to terrorist abuse. Even so, the CRA committed to reviewing its audit program for any improvements that could support consistent, risk-based audit approaches.

The post NSIRA Reviews CRA’s Anti-Terrorism Audit Division: What You Should Know appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

It emphasizes the need to use digital services, highlights sector outreach and support activities, and summarizes the Directorate’s modernization initiatives.

Digital Services

The newsletter is clear that online filing will be the default method for submitting the T3010 and that this change will be “in the near future.” As a result, charities still using paper returns should take any necessary steps to move to digital filing.

Why digital? The CRA update gives reasons including efficiency, effectiveness, and environment.

The public portion of the return is available online the next day, there is no need to manually enter the information from a paper form into a digital platform which reduces the possibility for errors, and it presumably helps reduce costs for this process, allowing CRA to operate “responsibly and resourcefully” and in alignment with the federal government’s fiscal priorities.

Need help? CCCC has a digital filing option with CRA-certified T3010 software that is free for members and is available to non-members for a nominal fee. We have additional T3010 resources to help you complete the return accurately and on time!

As the newsletter notes, “voluntary compliance is the cornerstone of the Canadian tax system” and that includes T3010 filing. Filing accurately and on time might seem like just another administrative task, but it can also be an important witness for Christian charities. It demonstrates accountability, diligence and both operational and financial integrity.

Sector Outreach and Support Activities

The newsletter links to Directorate outreach activities, including the Technical Issues Working Group (of which CCCC is a member!), presentations, and meeting with international counterparts. Its support activities include recorded webinars (the next topic will be disbursement quota), an updated page for donors, and new statistics about compliance and audits for 2024-2025.

These numbers always make for an interesting read.

In 2024-2025 there was a total of 6,595 non-audit interventions including education letters (5,373), phone calls (1,200), and visits (22). The overall number is a slight decline from 2022-2023 where there were 6,714 non-audit interventions.

Looking at audit outcomes for 2024-2025, the majority result in education letters (125), followed by compliance agreements (51) and a moderate number of notices of intention to revoke (21; “NITR”). The numbers were similar for 2023-2024 though NITRs were lower at 8 and in 2022-2023 the NITR numbers were quite a bit higher at 40, even though the overall number of audit outcomes (222) was virtually the same as 2024-2025 (220).

If you’re wondering how the audit process works you can take a deeper dive with a January 2025 report from the CRA’s Audit, Evaluation and Risk branch. You can also take a look at CRA’s heavily redacted Leads Screening Procedures manual. There is a of content you can’t see, but you can still get a general sense of how CRA handles leads about non-compliance.

Modernization

CRA’s stated goals for modernization are supporting transition to online services, improving timeliness of service (e.g. reduce decision time for charitable registration applications), streamline audit processes, and strengthen educational efforts.

It’s helpful to know what the Charities Directorate has planned, like more digital services and a webinar on the disbursement quota. But if you want to know more now, check out our T3010 resources and the disbursement quota section of our Knowledge Base.

The post Charities Directorate Quarterly Update appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

We also noted that the decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) and that we’d keep you posted on the case. The ONCA recently released its decision. It dismissed the appeal, affirming the outcome of the lower court’s decision. Here is a summary of the ONCA’s findings in Muslim Association of Canada v Attorney General of Canada, 2024 ONCA 541.

Summary

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) appealed a lower court decision that dismissed MAC’s constitutional challenge to a CRA audit. The ONCA agreed with the lower court that MAC’s case was “premature”. MAC needed to go through all the stages of the CRA process and receive a final decision before going to court.

Background

MAC is a registered Canadian charity with over 500 members and 1500 volunteers that help operate 22 mosques and community centres and 30 schools across Canada. In doing so, MAC serves more than 150,000 members of the Canadian Muslim community.

CRA regulates registered charities in Canada. This involves selecting charities for audit and sometimes imposing sanctions, from financial penalties up to revoking charitable status, for those charities that do not follow regulations. These audits are conducted by either the Compliance Division or RAD. RAD is responsible for preventing terrorist groups from abusing the favourable tax treatment given to registered charities.

RAD selected MAC for an audit. MAC argued that its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) freedoms of religion, expression, association, and right to equality were infringed by the audit in three specific ways: RAD’s risk-based assessment process was biased, RAD’s Audit Referral Analysis relies on highly questionable sources, and RAD’s audit and resulting Administrative Fairness Letter profoundly misunderstands Islam.

The lower court dismissed MAC’s challenge because it was premature. MAC needed to go through all the stages of the CRA process and receive a final decision before going to court. MAC appealed that decision.

Issues & Analysis

The ONCA had to decide two issues: was it wrong for the lower court to (1) apply the principle of prematurity to a Charter claim, and (2) find the administrative (CRA) process was an effective way for MAC’s concerns to be addressed.

Issue One: Does the Principle of Prematurity Apply to Charter Claims?

The lower court held that prematurity has little to do with the technical form or type of court case than with the appropriate use of judicial resources. The ONCA agreed. It affirmed that courts can typically manage their own processes as they see fit and have discretion to refuse to decide a case if there is an insufficient record. In this case, the lower court judge “found the factual record … to be preliminary and incomplete.” The ONCA found no error in this decision.

Issue Two: Does the CRA Process Provide an Effective Way for MAC’s Concerns to be Addressed?

The lower court held that MAC needed to go through all the stages of the CRA process and appeals before coming to court, and that this was an effective way for MAC’s concerns to be addressed. The ONCA agreed with the lower court for four reasons:

• CRA had not yet decided whether to impose a penalty and on what grounds it might do so. As such, the reasons for appealing any CRA decision are yet unknown;
• CRA is obliged to consider Charter rights and underlying values in its decisions;
• If a CRA assessment is appealed to the Tax Court, the Tax Court can grant Charter remedies; and
• If a CRA assessment (audit outcome) is appealed to the Tax Court, it does not preclude a separate Charter-based appeal of the audit process to another court.

Findings

The lower court was not wrong to dismiss MAC’s case due to prematurity.

Key Takeaways

First, as we noted in our summary of the lower court decision, even if the government’s process shows some evidence of bias, is long, and/or is potentially costly, courts will not readily intervene until the administrative process is complete.

Second, government decision-makers, CRA included, have an obligation to take into account Charter rights and freedoms. This, of course, includes religious freedom.

Third, a charity may have to go to more than one court to challenge the process and outcome of an audit. Tax penalty assessments are appealed to the Tax Court; however, challenging the audit process itself is not within the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.

Finally, the ONCA only briefly mentioned the lower court judge’s references to a lack of standards or criteria against which to measure the facts of the case. We discussed this at length in an article, Why we need the CRA to publish advancement of religion guidance. Though the lower court judgment raises this important issue, the lack of standards was not central to the grounds of appeal and so it comes as no surprise that it was mentioned only briefly.

For more on the judgment from MAC’s perspective and its response to the decision, see MAC’s July 10 official statement.

The post Court of Appeal Dismisses Charter Challenge of CRA Audit appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Below we highlight just a few items of interest.

REVENUE SOURCES

The report shows two-thirds (67%) of charities’ revenue comes from the government. This is a 3% increase from the Report on the Charities Program 2020-2021, which had government funds at 64% ($199B) of charities’ revenue. At the same time, revenue from the “other” category (interest, investment income, rental income, etc.) saw a 3% decrease in 2021-2022, from 16% ($49B) to 13% ($38B).  

APPLICATIONS

In 2021-2022, CRA received 2,375 applications for charitable registration and 84 applications for other qualified donees (municipalities, amateur athletic associations, low-cost housing corporations, journalism organizations, etc.).

Only 1% of charities’ applications were refused. Almost three-quarters (71%) were registered, and the remainder were either incomplete, abandoned or withdrawn. For other qualified donees, the refusal rate much higher at 13%.

Why were charities and other qualified donees denied registration? The report lists several reasons: non-charitable activities, acting as a conduit, lack of direction and control, lack of information and promotion of sport.

AUDITS & COMPLIANCE

As of March 31, 2022, there were 85,891 charities in Canada, 74,615 of which are registered charities. The rest were public and private foundations.

In 2021-2022 there were 182 audit outcomes, the majority of which resulted in education letters (81), followed by compliance agreements (45). There were also some penalties (6), voluntary revocations (5), one annulment and notices of intention to revoke (28). For seven audits, no changes resulted.

CRA identified several of its common non-compliance findings from audits: incomplete or incorrect return, incomplete or inaccurate donation receipts, inadequate books and records.

Looking at CRA’s data on compliance revocations, the overwhelming majority of revocations are “delinquent” and voluntary revocations. Delinquent means a charity or other qualified donee failed to file a T3010. In 2021-2022 only 29 were revoked for cause.

POLICY PRIORITIES

CRA publishes a wide variety of guidance documents to help charities understand their responsibilities, obligations and opportunities. These policy guidance products are developed through engagement with the charitable sector, other governments and departments. In 2021-2022, the CRA started to work on guidance including:

Receipting

Right now, the receipting guidance is not contained in a single document. Instead, there are multiple guidance documents, including CPC-009, Official donation receipts by a newly registered charity, published in 1993; CPC-010, Issuing a receipt in a name other than the donor’s, published in 1994; CPS-007, RCAAAs: receipts-issuing policy, published in 1995; CPS-014, Computer-generated receipts, published in 2000.

Related business

The current guidance, CPS-019 What is a related business was published in 2003.

Fundraising

The current guidance, CG-013, Fundraising by registered charities, was published in 2012.

Annulment

There is no current standalone guidance on annulment.

Housing

There are several guidance documents related to housing, including CPC-004, Housing for Seniors (Life-Tenancy Agreement), published in 1992; CG-022, Housing and charitable registration, published in 2014); CG-025, Qualified done: Low-cost housing corporation for the aged, published in 2016.

Management and administration expenses

Current information about management and administration expenses is found in CRA’s guide to Completing the Form T3010, addressing Section D – Financial Information (D4 – Expenditures) and Schedule 6, Detailed Financial Information (Statement of Operations).

Protection of the environment

The current guidance, CSP-E08, Environment, was published in 2003; SCP-E05, Ecologically sensitive land, was also published in 2003.

Expenses incurred by volunteers

The current guidance, CPC-025, Expenses incurred by volunteers, was published in 2003.

This is a long list – it shows that the CRA has a lot of work on the go, and charities should be ready to see a wide variety of new guidance published over the next few years. If your charity has ideas, insights or suggestions about any of these topics, please share those with us! We engage with CRA in a variety of ways, including through the Technical Issues Working Group, and your input can help inform our interactions and proposals for workable solutions.  

The post CRA’s Report on the Charities Program 2021 to 2022 appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The CRA has recognized the “unintended impact on Canadians” as a result of the new reporting requirements and will work with the Department of Finance to clarify its guidance about the requirements. As this information becomes available, CRA will communicate it to the public.

Before CRA provided this exemption for bare trusts, penalties for late filings were already going to be waived (except in the case of gross negligence). Instead of penalties, CRA was adopting an education first approach to compliance for this new reporting requirement.

A full exemption for the 2023 tax year is a welcome change. Because bare trusts are not well defined and dependent on the facts of each situation, many charities were uncertain about whether a T3 was required. We trust (pun intended!) that forthcoming information from CRA and Finance will provide the necessary clarity.

What are bare trusts?

As the CRA explains, “bare trust” is not defined in the Income Tax Act. For income tax purposes, a bare trust is

“…a trust arrangement under which the trustee can reasonably be considered to act as agent for all the beneficiaries under the trust with respect to all dealings with all of the trust’s property.”

CRA gives an example: “a property developer establishes a bare trust arrangement that will hold registered title to real property, while the developer retains beneficial ownership.”

What are the new trust reporting requirements?

The main changes to trust reporting are that:

• Many more trusts (subject to certain conditions) must file an annual T3 Return
  • Trusts formed as charities are exempt
  • Registered charities’ internally held trusts are exempt
• Trusts required to file a T3 generally need to complete Schedule 15 to report beneficial ownership information
• Bare trusts are subject to the reporting rules but are exempt from 2023 reporting and future reporting will be subject to clarifications from CRA and Finance

These changes stem from bill C-32, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 (Bill C-32. This bill added new subsections to section 150 of the Income Tax Act, requiring more trusts to file T3s. It also expanded the list of information that must be reported in the T3 Return (see the Income Tax Regulations).

Trusts that are formed as registered charities are specifically excluded, and in November, 2023, CRA confirmed that charities do not have to file separate T3s for internally held trusts.

For more, see our blog post Charities Do Not Have to File T3 Returns for Internal Trusts.

When would T3s normally be due?

The filing deadline depends on the trust’s tax year-end. Generally, trusts are required to have a December 31 tax year-end. The T3 must be filed no later than 90 days after the trust’s tax year-end.

For detailed information about the T3, see CRA’s T3 Trust Guide – 2023

The post Important Trust Reporting Update: Bare Trusts are Exempt for 2023 appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Over many years CCCC has consistently and respectfully inquired about the status of the religion guidance in our government interactions. This article sets out and expands on those questions and concerns, identifying how this guidance gap has both a tangible and symbolic impact.

The tangible impact is seen in a 2023 Ontario court decision where, for example, the judge cited an “absence of benchmarks” to determine whether the CRA treated a Muslim charity fairly and in the same way it would have treated a Christian or Jewish charity. Guidance could have arguably provided those benchmarks for the court.

The symbolic impact of a guidance gap can be seen in the message, even if unintentional, that religious charities do not merit a published guidance document that speaks to their work. In contrast, publishing guidance is a way to recognize the significant contributions that religious groups make to our communities and affirm a positive message about faith-based charities in Canada.

Our hope is that this article inspires and prompts discussion around the path forward, and how we can collectively advocate for recognition and support of religious charities’ essential contributions.

The post Why CCCC is Advocating for Advancement of Religion Guidance appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Charities Directorate is hosting upcoming webinars about registering for My Business Account (MyBA). The webinars are free to all registered charities and other qualified donees. Both English and French language sessions are available. Space is limited, so be sure to sign up soon if you’re interested.

English:

March 19, 2024 10-11am EST

March 19, 2024, 1-2pm EST

March 21, 2024, 10-11am EST

French:

Le 21 mars 2023, 13-14h heure de l’est

What is MyBA ?

My BA is an online platform that gives users access to their CRA account. Organizations can apply for charitable status, file T3010s, and update organizational information.

Related Info: T3010

If you’re looking for more about preparing and filing your T3010, check out CCCC’s T3010 Guides and Tools, out blog post on the latest version of the T3010 Return as well as our CRA-approved, fillable, saveable T3010.

The post CRA Webinar – Registering for My Business Account appeared first on CCCC Blogs.